¦nasi

: ¦ ¦

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

-Deposited by
Brothers in Unity

ORIGINES ECCLESIASTICS;
OB. THE
ANTIQUITIES or
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH,
AND
OTHER WORKS,
OF THE
REV. JOSEPH BINGHAM, M.A.
Formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford ; and afterwards Rector of
Head bourn Worthy, and H avant, Hampshire;
WITH A
SET OF MAPS OF ECCLESIASTICAL GEOGRAPHY,
TO WHICH ARE NOW ADDED,
SEVERAL SERIKEONS,
AND OTHER MATTER, NEVER BEFORE PUBLISHED,
The whole Revised and Edited, together with
& Btogvajilitcal Account of tfu fttttftor,
BY HIS GREAT GRANDSON,
THE REV. RICHARD BINGHAM, B.C.L.
Prebendary of Chichester, Vicar of Hale Magna,
Incumbent of Gosport Chapel, and formerly Fellow of New College, Oxford.

IN EIGHT VOLUMES.— VOL. VI.
LONDON :
PRINTED FOR WILLIAM STRAKER,
443, WEST STRAND.
MDCCCXXXIV.

CONTENTS.

BOOK XVI.
OF THE UNITY AND DISCIPLINE OP THE ANCIENT CHURCH.
CHAP. I.
Of the Union and Communion observed among Catholics in the
Ancient Church.

Sect, 1. Of the Fundamental Unity of Faith and Obedience to the Laws of
Christ. — 2. Of the Unity of Love and Charity, as an Essential part of
Christian Obedience. — 3. Other Sorts, of Unity necessary to the Well-
being of the Church. — 4. Among these was reckoned, first the necessary
Use of One Baptism, ordinarily to be administered by the Hands of a
Regular Ministry. — 5. Secondly, Unity of Worship, in joining with the
Church in Prayers and Administration of the Word and Sacraments. —
6. Thirdly, the Unity of Subjection of Presbyters and people to their
Bishop, and Obedience to all Public Orders of the Church in Matters
of an indifferent Nature. — 7. Fourthly, the Unity of Submission to the
Discipline of the Church.— 8. How different Churches maintained Com
munion with one another. First in the Common Faith. — 9. Secondly,
in mutual Assistance of each other for Defence of the Common Faith. —
10. Thirdly, in joining in Communion with each other in all Holy
Offices, as occasion required, — 11. Fourthly, in mutual consent to ratify
all Legal Acts of Discipline, regularly exercised in any Church what
soever. — 12. Fifthly, in receiving Unanimously the Customs of the Uni
versal Church, and submitting to the Decrees of General Councils. —
13. Sixthly, in submitting to the Decrees of National Councils. — 14. No
Necessity of a visible Head to unite all parts of the Catholic Church into
one Communion.— 15. Nor any Necessity that the whole Church should
agree in the same Rites and Ceremonies, which were things of an indif
ferent Nature. — 16. What allowance was made for Men, who, out of
simple ignorance break Communion with one another. — 17. Of different
Degrees of Unity ; and that no one was esteemed to be in the perfect
Unity of the' Church, who was not in full Communion with her.
A 2

CONTENTS.

CHAP. II.

Of Ihe Discipline of the Church, and the various Kinds of it;
together with the various Methods observed in the Administra
tion of it.
Sect. 1. That the Discipline of the Church did not consist in Cancelling or
Disannulling any Man's Baptism.— 2. But in excluding Men from the
common Benefits and Privileges consequent to Baptism.— 3. This Power
originally a mere spiritual Power: though in some Cases the secular
Arm was called into give its Assistance.— 4. This Assistance never re
quired to proceed so far, as for mere Error to take away Life, or shed
Blood. — 5. The Discipline of the Church deprived no Man of his natural
or civil Right; much less the Magistrate of his Power, or Allegiance
due to him. — But, consisted, first, in Admonition of the Offender. —
7. Secondly, ill Suspension from the Communion, called the lesser Ex
communication.— 8. Thirdly, in Expulsion from the Church, called, the
greater Excommunication, total Separation, Anathema, and the like.
9. This Sort of Excommunication commonly notified to other Churches.
10. After which he that was excommunicated in one Church, was held
excommunicate in all Churches. — 11. And avoided also in civil Com
merce and outward Conversation : and allowed no Memorial after Death.
12. The Grounds and Reasons of this Practice. — 13. No Donations or
Oblations allowed to be received from excommunicate Persons. — 14.
No one to marry with excommunicate Heretics, or receive their Eulo
gize, or read their Books, but burn them. — 15. What meant by deliver
ing unto Satan. — 16. What by Anathema Maranatha. And whether
any such Forms were in Use in the Ancient Church. — 17. Whether Ex
communication was ever pronounced with Execration, or devoting the
Sinner to temporal Destruction.

CHAP. III.
Of the Objects of Ecclesiastical Censures, or the Persons, on whom
they might be inflicted : with a General Account of the Crimes,
for which they might be inflicted.
Sect. 1. AU Members of the Church, falling into great and scandalous
Crimes, made liable to ecclesiastical Censures without Exception —
2. Women as well as Men.— 3. The Rich as well as the Poor No
Commutation of Penance allowed, nor Friendship, nor Favour  4
What Privilege some claimed upon the Intercession of the Martyrs in
Prison for them : and how this was answered by Cyprian —5 Magis
trates' and Princes subject to Ecclesiastical Censures as'wel'lasaDV
others.-6. In what cases the greater excommunication was forborne

CONTENTS. • V
forthe Good of the Church. — 7. The Innocent neverinvolved among the
Guilty in ecclesiastical Censures. The Original and Novelty of popish
Interdicts. — 8. TheDangerof excommunicating innocent Persons.— 9.
No one to be excommunicated without being first heard and allowed to
speak for himself.— 10. Nor without legal Conviction, either by his own
Confession ; or credible Evidence of Witnesses, against whom there
was no just Exception ; or such Notoriety of the Fact, as made a Man
liable to Excommunication Ipso Facto, without any formal Denunciation.
— 11. Excommunication not ordinarily inflicted on Minors, or Children
under Age. — 12. How Persons were sometimes excommunicated after
Death.— 13. The Censures of the Church not to be inflicted for small
Offences. — 14. What the Ancients meant by small Offences in this Mat
ter, and how they distinguished them from the greater. — 15. Excommu
nication not inflicted for temporal Causes. — 16. No Bishop allowed to
use it to avenge any private Injury done to himself. — No Man to be
excommunicated for Sins only in Design a.nd Intention. — 18, Nor for
forced or involuntary Actions.

CHAP. IV.
A Particular Account of those called, Great Crimes. Of Trans
gressions of the First and Second Commandment. Of the
Principal of these, vis. Idolatry. Of the several Species of
Idolatry, and Degrees of Punishment allotted to them accord
ing to the Proportion and Quality of the Offences.
Sect. 1. The Mistake of some about the Number of great Crimes, in con
fining them to Idolatry, Adultery, and Murder. — 2. The Account given
of great Crimes, in the civil Law extended much further. —
3. In the ecclesiastical Law the Account of great Crimes ex
tended to the whole Decalogue. — 4. A particular Enumeration of the
great Crimes against the first and second Commandments. Of Idolatry,
and the several Species or Branches of it. — 5. Of the Saerifwati and
Thurifirati, or such as fell into Idolatry by offering Incense to Idols,
or partaking of th« Sacrifices. — 6. Of the Libellatici. Wherein their Ido
latry consisted. — 7. Of those, who feigned themselves mad, to avoid
Sacrificing. — 8. Of Contributors to Idolatry. Of the Flamines, Mitne-
rarii, and Coronati. What they were, and how guilty of Idolatry. — 9.
How the Office of the Duumvirate made Men guilty of Idolatry, and how
it was punished. — 10. How Actors and Stage-players, and Charioteers,
and other Gamesters, and Frequenters of the Theatre and the Circus
were charged with Idolatry, and punished for it. — 11. Idol-makers, their
Crime and Punishment. — 12. The Idolatry of building heathen Tem
ples and Altars. — 13. Of Merchants selling Frankincense to the Idol
Temples ; and the Buyers and Sellers of the public Victims. — 14. Of
eating Things offered to Idols. How and when it stood chargeable with
Idolatry. — -15. Whether a Christian out of Curiosity might be present
at an Idol-Sacrifice, not joining in the Service. — 16. Whether he might
eat his own Meat in an Idol-Temple. — 17. Or feast with the Heathen
on their Idol-Festivals. — 18. Of the Idolatry of worshipping Angels,
Saints, Martyrs, Images, Sic. — 19. Of Encouragers of Idolatry and
Connivers at it. And of the contrary Extreme in demolishing Idols
without sufficient Authority to do it.

T; CONTENTS.

CHAP. V.

Of the Practice of curious and forbidden Arts, Divination,
Magic, and Inchantment: and of the Laws of the Church
made for the Punishment of them.
Sect. 1.— Of several Sorts of Divination. Particularly of judicial Astro
logy —2. Of Augury and Soothsaying.-3. Of Divination by L°ts--*-
Of Divination by express Compact with Satan.-5. Of Magical Inchant
ment and Sorcery .-6. Of Amulets, Charms, and Spells to cure Diseases.
7. Of the Prcestiaice, or false Miracles wrought by the Power of batan.
8.— Of the Observation of Days and Accidents, and making Fresages
and Omens upon them.

CHAP. VI.
Of Apostacy to Judaism, and Paganism ; of Heresy and
Schism ; and of Sacrilege and Simony.
Sect. 1.— Of such as apostatized totally from Christianity to Judaism.—
2. Of such as mingled the Jewish Religion and the Christian together.—
3. Of such as communicated with the Jews in their unlawful Rites and
Practices.— 4. Of such as apostatized voluntarily into Heathenism.—
5. Of Heretics and Schismatics, and their Punishments both ecclesias
tical and civil. — 6. A particular Account of the civil Punishments in
flicted on them by the Laws of the State. — 7. How Heretics were
treated by the Discipline of the Church. First, they were anathema
tized, and cast out of the Church.— 8. Secondly, Debarred from entering
the Church by some Canons, though not by all.— 9. Thirdly, No one to
encourage Heretics and Schismatics by frequenting their Assemblies —
10. Fourthly, No one to eat or converse with Heretics, or receive their
Presents, or retain their Writings, or make Marriages with them, Se
ll. Fifthly, Heretics not allowed to be Evidence in any ecclesiastical
Cause against a Catholic. — 12. Sixthly,Heretics not allowed to succeed to
any paternal Inheritance. — 13. No Heretic to have promotion among the
Clergy after his Return to the Church. — 14. No one to be ordained, who
kept any in'his Family that were not of the catholic Faith.— 15. No oneto
bring his Cause before an heretical Judge under Pain of Excommunica
tion. — 16. What Term of Penance imposed upon relenting Heretics. ---
17. How this varied according to the Age aud State, and Condition of
several Sorts of Heretics. — 18. Heresiarchs more severely treated than
their Followers. — 19. And voluntary Deserters more severely than they,
who complied only out of Fear.— 20. A Difference made between such
Heretics as retained the Form of Baptism, and such as rejected or cor
rupted it. — 21. No one to be reputed a formal Heretic, before he contu
maciously resisted the Admonition of the Church.— 22. The like Dis
tinctions observed in inflicting the Censures of the Church upon Schis
matics, according to the different Nature, and various Degrees of their

CONTENTS. Vii
Schism.— 23. Of Sacrilege. Particularly of diverting things appropri
ated to sacred Uses, to other Purposes.— 21. Of Sacrilege committed in
robbing Graves.— 25. The Sacrilege of the ancient Traditors, who
delivered up their Bibles and sacred Utensils to the Heathen to be
burnt.-— 26. The Sacrilege of profaning the Sacraments, and Altars,
and the Holy Scriptures, &c. — 27. The Sacrilege of depriving Men of
the Use of the Scripture, and the Word of God, and the Sacraments,
particularly the Cup in the Lord's-Supper. — 28. Of Simony in buying
and selling spiritual Gifts.---29. Of Simony in purchasing spiritual Pre
ferments.— 30. Of Simony in ambitious Usurpation of holy Offices, and
Intrusion into other Men's Places and Preferments.

CHAP. VII,
Of Sins against the Third Commandment, Blasphemy, Pro
fane Swearing, Perjury, and Breach of Vows.
Sect. 1. The Blasphemy of Apostates. — 2. The Blasphemy of Heretics and
profane Christians.— 3. TheBlasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Where
is particulary enquired, what Notion the Ancients had of it; In what-
sense they believed it unpardonable; and what Censures they inflicted
on it.— 4. Of profane Swearing. All Oaths not forbidden.— 5. But only
the Custom of vain and common Swearing.— 6. And Swearing by the
Creatures.— 7. And by the Emperor's Genius, and Saints, and Angels,
&c— 8. Of Perjury and its Punishments. — 9. Of Breach of Vows.

CHAP. VIII.
Of Sins against the Fourth Commandment, or Violations of
the Law enjoining the Religious Observation of the Lord's-
Day
Sect. 1. Absenting from religious Assemblies on the Lord's-Day how pu
nished by the Laws of the Church.— 2. Of frequenting some Part of the
Lord's Day Service, and neglecting the Rest. ---3. Fasting on the Lord's-
Day prohibited under Pain of Excommunication.— -4. Frequenting tha
Theatres and other Shews and Pastimes on this Day how punished.

CHAP. IX.
Of great Transgressions against the Fifth Commandment, vis.
Disobedience to Parents and Masters ; Treason and Rebellion
against Princes ; and Contempt of the Laws of the Church.
Sect. 1. Children not to desert their Parents under Pretence of Religion.
The Censure of sucli as taught otherwise.— 2. C/iildren not to many

Viii CONTENTS.
without the Consent of their Parents.— 3. Nor slaves without the Con
sent of their Masters  4. The Punishment of Treason, and Disrespect
to Princes.— 5. Contemners of the Laws of the Church how censured.

CHAP. X.
Of great Transgressions against the Sixth Commandment ,¦ of
Murder and Manslaughter, Parricide, Self-murder, Dismem
bering the Body, exposing of Infants, causing of Abortion, 8fc.
Sect. I. Murder ever reckoned a Capital and Unpardonable Crime by the
Laws of the State. — 2. How punished by the Laws of the Church.—
3. The Heinousness of Murder when joined with other crimes, as Idola
try, Adultery, and magical Practices.— 4. Causing of Abortion con
demned and punished as Murder .---5. The Punishment of Parricide. —
6. Self Murder. — 7. Of Dismembering the Body.— 8. Of involuntary
Murder by Chance or Manslaughter.-— 9. False Witness against any
Man's Life reputed Murder. — 10. Informers against the Brethren in
Time of Persecution, treated as Murderers. — 11. Exposing of Infants
reputed Murder. — 12. If a Virgin, deflowered by a Rape, kills herself for
Grief, the Corrupter is reputed guilty of the Murder. — 13. The Lanistce,
or Fencing-Masters reputed Accessories to Murder, and their calling
condemned. — 14. Spectators of the Murders committed on the Stage,
accounted Accessories to Murder also. — 15. Famishers of the Poor and
Indigent reputed guilty of Murder. — 16. And all they, by whose Autho
rity Murder was committed. — 17. Enmity, and Strife and Quarrelling,
punished as lower Degrees of Murder.

CHAP. XI.
Of great Transgressions against the Seventh Commandment,
Fornication, Adultery, Incest, Polygamy, fyc.
Sect. 1. The Punishment of Fornication.— 2. Of Adultery.— 3. Of Incest. 
4. Whether the Marriage of Cousin-Germans was reckoned Incest. — 5.
Polygamy and Concubinage.— 6. Of marrying after unlawful Divorce.
—7. Of Second, Third and Fourth Marriages.— 8. Of Ravishment.— 9.
Of unnatural Impurities.— 10. Of maintaining and allowing Harlots. —
11. Of writing and reading lascivious Books.— 12. Frequenting the
Theatre and Stage-plays forbidden upon this Account.— 13. As also all
Excess of Riot and Intemperance for the same Reason. — 14. And pro
miscuous Bathing of Men and Women together.— 15. And promiscuous
and lascivious Dancing, wanton Songs, &c— 16. As also promiscuous
Clothing, or Men and Women interchanging Apparel. — 17. And suspect
ed Vigils, or Pernoctations of Women in Churches under Pretence of De
votion.

CONTENTS! IX

CHAP. XII.
Of great Transgressions of the Eighth Commandment, Theft,
Oppression, Fraud, fyc.
Sect. 1. The Censure of those Heretics, who taught the Doctrine of Re
nunciation, or Necessity of having all Things Common.— Of Plagiary or
Man-stealing. — 3. Of malicious Injustice. — 4. Of simple Theft. — 5.
Of detaining lost Goods from the true Owner.— 6. Of refusing to pay
just Debts. — 7. And what Men are bound to by the Obligation of Pro
mise and Contract. — 8. Of removing Bounds and Landmarks.— 9. Of
Oppression. — 10. Of the Exactions and Bribery of Judges. — 11. Of
the Exactions of Publicans, and Collectors of the Public Revenues, and
other Officers of the Roman Empire. — 12. Of the Exactions of Advocates
and Lawyers, and Apparitors of Judges. — 13. Of griping Usury and
Extortion. — 14. Of Forgery.— 15. Of Calumny with Regard to Men's
Estates and Fortunes : and the Reverse of it, the Fraud of Adulation and
Flattery. — 16. Of Deceitfulness in Trust. — 17. Of Deceitfulness in
Traffic. — 18. Of abetting and concealing of Robbers; buying stolen
Goods, &c. — 19. Idleness censured as the Mother of Robbery.— 20. And
Gaming as an Occasion of Fraud, and Ruin of many poor Families, who
by these Means were reduced to the greatest Exigence.
CHAP. XIII.
Of great Transgressions against the Ninth,. Commandment,
False Accusation, Libelling, Informing, Calumny and Slander,
Railing and Reviling.
Sect. 1.— Of false Witness.— 2. Of Libelling.— 3, Of Detraction, Whis
pering, and Back-biting.— 4. Of Railing and Reviling, or scurrilous
and abusive Language : and of revealing Secrets.— 5. Of Lying. How
far it brought Men under the Discipline of the Church.

CHAP. XIV.
Of great Transgressions against the Tenth Commandment,
Envy, Covetousness, 8cc.
Sect ! —Whether Envy brought Men under the Discipline of the Church.
_2.Of Pride, Ambition, and Vain-glory.-3. Of Covetousness.- 1. Of
Carnal Lusts.

X CONTENTS.
BOOK XVII.
OF THE EXEK.CISE OF DISCIPLINE UPON THE CLERGY IN
THE ANCIENT CHURCH.

CHAP. I.
Of the Difference of Ecclesiastical Censures inflicted on Clergy
men and Laymen.
Sect. 1. The peculiar Notion of Communion ecclesiastical, and Excommu
nication ecclesiastical, as applied to the Clergy. — 2. The Clergy usually
punished by a Removal from their Office, but not always subjected to
public Penance, as Men wholly cast out of the Communion of the Church.
— 3. Yet in some special Cases both Penalties inflicted. — 4. Of Suspen
sion from their Revenues. — 5. Of Suspension from their Office. — 6. Of
Deposition or Degradation.

CHAP. II.
Of reducing the Clergy to the Slate and Communion of Laymen,
as a Punishment for great Offences.
Sect. 1. Lay-Communion not the same as Communion in one Kind only.
—2. Neither does it signify barely communicating among Laymen with
out the Rails of the Chancel.— 3. But a total Degradation, or Depriva
tion of Orders, and Reduction to the State and Condition of Laymen.—
4. Clergymen thus reduced, seldom allowed to recover their ancient
Station.— o. Notwithstanding the indelible Character of Ordination.—
6. But sometimes excommunicated, as well as deposed, and denied the
Communion of Laymen.— 7. Sometimes removed and corrected by the
Assistance and Authority of the secular Power.— 8. What meant by the
Punishment called Curia; tradi, or delivering up to the secular Court

CHAP. III.
Of the Punishment, called Peregrina Communio, or reducing
Clergymen to the Communion of Strangers.
Sect 1 The several Canons wherein this Punishment is mentioned -2
The ( ommunion of Strangers not the same as Lay-Communion -3 Nor
Communion in oneK.nd-4. Nor Communion at the Hour of Death
o. Nor the Communion of such as were enjoined to <r0 on Pilx-r^m, —
Earth, which was a Piece of Discipline unknown°to the AnSs.™

CONTENTS. xi
6. Nor any private and peculiar Oblation for Strangers.— 7. But commu
nicating only as Strangers travelling without commendatory Letlers,
who might partake of the Church's Charity.but not of the Communion
of the Altar. — 8. This Notion confirmed from several Parts of ancient
History.— 9. What Sort of Penance was necessary to restore such delin
quent Clergymen to their Office and Station again.
CHAP. IV.
Of some other special and peculiar Ways of inflicting Punish
ment on the Clergy.
Sect. 1. Sometimes the Clergy, perpetually suspended from their Office, yet
allowed to retain their Title and Dignity. — 2. Sometimes degraded not
totally, but partially, from one Order to another. — 3. Sometimes de
prived of a Part of their Office, but allowed to exercise the Rest. — 4.
Sometimes deprived of their Power over a Part of their Flock, but al
lowed it over the Rest.— 5. Bishops in Afric punished by deprivingthem
of their Seniority, and Right of succeeding to the Primacy or metropo-
litical Power.— 6. Also by confining them to the Communion of their
own Church. — 7. Or by removing them from a greater Diocese to a les
ser. — S. The Clergy in general punished by a Loss of their Seniority
among those of their own Order. — 9. The inferior Clergy punished by
rendering them incapable of being promoted to any higher Order. — 10.
The Clergy sometimes punished by denying them the public Exer
cise of their Office, whilst they were allowed to officiate in private. — 11.
Of Intrusion of Offenders into a Monastery to do Penance in private.—
12. Of corporal Punishment. How far used as a Piece of Discipline
upon the inferior Clergy.

CHAP. V.
A particular Account of the Crimes for which Clergymen were
liable to be punished with any of the foremerdioned Kinds of
Censure.
Sect. 1. All Crimes that were punithed with Excommunication in a Layman,
punished with Suspension or Deprivation in the Clergy.— 2. Some Crimes
rendered an Ordination originally void : and for such Crimes the Clergy
were immediately liable to be degraded from the very Moment of their
Ordination. — As 1. For Ignorance or Heterodoxy in Religion. — 3. Se
condly for great Immorality before their Ordination : and for being or
dained against any of the known Rules of Ordination. As if he were a
Digamist, or married to a Widow, or to one that had been divorced
from another Man. If he were ordained cnroktkvukvuq, without
being fixed to some particular Diocese. If he were ordained without
Letters dimissory against the Consent of his own Bishop ; or without
the Consent of any of the Parties, that had a Right to vote in his Elec
tion. If any Bishop was ordained, who had before been degraded
from his Orders. Or if he was ordained into a full See, where another

xii CONTENTS.
was regularly ordained before him. If any was an Energumen, or
under the agitation of an evil Spirit, when he was ordained. If any had vo
luntarily mangled his own Body ;if any one was ordained,who hadnever
been baptized, or not baptized in due Form, or was baptized by Here
tics, or re-baptized by them ; if any made Use of the secular Powers to
gain a Promotion in the Church ; if a Bishop ordained any of his own
unworthy Kindred ; if a Bishop clandestinely ordained his own Successor
without the Consent of the Metropolitan or a provincial Council; or if
two Bishops clandestinelyordained a Bishop without the Consent of their
Fellow Bishops and the Metropolitan ; in all these Cases the Clergy so
ordained were liable to be deposed for transgressing the Rules of Ordi
nation.— 4. No Remedy allowed in this Case by doing public Penance
for Offences. For all public Penitents were forever incapable of Ordi
nation. And if any such were ordained, they were immediately liable to
be deposed and degraded. — 5. Some Impediments of Ordination arising
from Men's outward State and Condition in the World, were also some
times Occasions of Deprivation. As if any Soldier was ordained, or any
Slave or Vassal without the Consent of his Master; or any Member
of a civil Corporation, or any of the Curiales in the Roman Govern
ment. — 6. What Crimes might occasion the Deprivation of the Clergy,
or other Censures to befal them, in the Performance of their Office, or
rather Non-performance of it after Ordination. Clergymen to be cen
sured for Contempt of the Canons in general. — 7. More particularly for
Negligence in their Duty. — 8. For neglecting to use the public Liturgy,
Lord's Prayer, Hymns, &c. — 9. For making any Alteration in the Form
of Baptism. — 10. For not frequenting divine Service daily. — 11. For
meddling jffith secular Offices. — 12. For deserting their own Church
without Licence, to go to another. — 13. For officiating after the Condem
nation of a Synod. — 14. For Appealing from the Censure of a provincial
Synod to any foreign Churches. — 15. For refusing to end Controversies
before Bishops, and flying to a secular Tribunal. — 16. For suffering
themselves to be re-baptized or re-ordained. — 17. For denying them
selves to be Clergymen. — 18. For publishing Apocryphal Books. — 19.
For superstitious Abstinence from Flesh, Wine, &c. — 20. For eating of
Blood. — 21. For contemning the Fasts or Festivals of the Church.— 22.
For not observing the Rules about Easter..— 23. For wearing an indecent
Habit. — 24. For keeping Hawks or Hounds, and following any unlawful
Diversions.— 25. For suspicious Cohabitation with strange Women. 26.
For marrying after Ordination.— 27. For retaining an adulterous Wife.
28. For Non-residence. — 29. For attempting to hold Preferment in two
Dioceses. 30. For needless frequenting of public Inns and Taverns. 31.
For conversing familiarly with Jews, Heretics, or Gentile Philosophers.
32. For using over rigorous Severity towards Lapsers. — 33. For want of
Charity to indigent Clergymen in their Necessity  34. For judgin°- in
Cases of Blood. — 35. Crimes, for which Bishops in particular might' be
suspended or degraded. For giving Ordinations contrary to the Canons.
• 36. For neglecting to putthe Laws of Discipline in Execution. 37. For
dividing their Diocese, and erecting new Bishoprics without Leave.
Or for extending their Claim toother Men's Rights beyond their own
Limits and Jurisdiction.— 38. For not attending Provincial Councils
39. For oppressing thePeople with unjust Exactions. — 40. For harbour!
ing such as fled from another Diocese without Leave.— 41. Chorepiscopi
might be censured for acting beyond their Commission.— 42. And Pres
byters for usurping upon the Episcopal Office.— 43. And Deacons for
assuming Offices and Privileges above their Order and Station.

CONTENTS. Xlii

BOOK XVIII.

OF THE SEVERAL ORDERS OF PENITENTS, AND THE METHOD
OF PERFORMING PUBLIC PENANCE IN THE CHURCH, BY
GOING THROUGH THE SEVERAL STAGES OF REPENTANCE.

CHAP. I.
A particular Account of the several Orders of Penitents in the
Church.

Sect. I. Penitents divided into four distinct Orders or Stations. 2. The
first Original of this Distinction. 3. Of the first Order, called Flentes,
or Mourners. 4. Of the second Order, called Audientes, or Hearers.
5. Of the third Order, called Prostrators, or Kneelers, and Penitents
in the strictest Sense. 6. Of the fourth Order, called Consistentes, or
Co-standers.

CHAP. II.
Of the Ceremonies used in admitting Penitents to do public
Penance, and the Manner of performing public Penance in the
Church.

Sect. 1. Penitents first admitted to Penance by Imposition of Hands. 2. At
which Time they were obliged to appear before the Bishop with Sack
cloth and Ashes upon their Heads. This Ceremony anciently not confined
to Ash- Wednesday, or the Beginning of Lent, but Persons were admit
ted to Penance at any Time, as the Bishop judged most proper in his
own Discretion. 3. Penitents obliged to cut off their Hair, or go veiled,
as another Token of Sorrow and Mourning. 4. Penitents to abstain from
Bathing and Feasting, and other innocent Diversions of Life. 5. Pe
nitents to observe all the public Fasts of the Church. 6. Penitents to
restrain themselves in the Use of the conjugal State. 7. For which
Reason no married Persons were admitted to Penance, but by Consent of
both Parties. 8. Penitents not allowed to marry in the Time of their
Penance. 9. Penitents obliged to pray kneeling, whilst others prayed
standing, on all Festivals and Days of Relaxation. 10. Penitents ob
liged to shew great Liberality to the Poor. 11. And to minister and
lerve the Church in burying the Dead

Xtv CONTENTS.

CHAP. III.

A particular Account of the Exomologesis, w penitential Con
fession of the ancient Church; shewing it to be a different Thing
from the private or auricular Confession introduced, by the
Church of Rome.
Sect. 1. The gross Mistake of those, who make the Exomologesis of the
ancient Church to signify auricular Confession. — 2. No Necessity of
auricular Confession ever urged by the ancient Church.— 3. This proved
further from the Practice of the Ancients in denying all Manner of Ab
solution to some relapsing Sinners, without excluding them from the
Mercy and Pardon of God, upon Confession to Him alone. — 4. And from
above twenty Considerations of the like Nature. — 5, Yet private Con
fession allowed and encouraged in some Cases. — As first for lesser Sins,
Men were advised mutually lo confess to one another, to have each
other's Prayers and Assistance. — 6. Secondlyin case of Injuries done to
private Persons, Men were obliged to confess, and ask Pardon of the
injured Party. — 7. Thirdly, when they were under any Troubles of Con
science they were advised to make private Confession to a Minister,
to have his Counsel and Direction. — 8. Fourthly, to take his Advice
also, whether it was proper to do public Penance for private Offences. -
— 9. Fifthly, when there was any Danger of Death arising fromthe
Laws of the State against certain Offences. — 10. Sixthly, private Con
fession was also required in Case of private Admonition for Offences.
— 11. The Office of the penitentiary Priest set up in many Churches to
receive, and regulate such private Confessions. — 12. This Office was af
terwards abrogated in the East by Nectarius, and Men were left to their
Liberty as to what concerned private Confession.

CHAP. IV.
Of the great Rigour, Strictness, and Severity of the Discipline
and Penance of the ancient Church.
Sect. 1. Public Penance ordinarily allowed but once to any sort of Sin
ners. — 2. Some Sinners held under a strict Penance all their Lives to
the very Hour of Death.— 3. Such as were absolved upon a Death
bed, were obliged to perform their ordinary Penance, if they recovered.
—4. Some Sinners were denied Communion at their last Hour. — 5. How
this may be vindicated and cleared from the Charge of Novatianism. 
6. This Rigour abated in after Ages, without any Reflection on the pre
ceding Practice.— 7. What Liberty was allowed to Bishops in impo
sing of Penance, and exacting proper Satisfaction of Sinners. Some
Sinners allowed to do Penance twice. — 8. Bishops had also Power to
moderate the Term of Penance upon just Occasion.— 9. And this was
the true ancient Notion of an Indulgence. — 10. Which was sometimes
granted at the Intercession of the Martyrs, or the Instance of the civil

CONTENTS. XV
Magistrate.— 11. Bishops had also a Power to alter the Nature of the
Penalty in some Measure, as well as the Term of it.— 12. What the
Ancients mean by the Term, Legitima Pantitentia.—\8. What meant by
the Phrase, Inter Hycmantes orare.

BOOK. XIX.
OF ABSOLUTION, OR THE MANNER OF RE-ADMITTING PENI
TENTS INTO THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH AGAIN.
CHAP. I.
Of the Nature of Absolution, and the several Sorts of it : More
particularly of such as relate to the penitential Discipline of
the Church.

Sect 1. — All Church-absolution only ministerial, not absolute. — 2. Of the
grand Absolution of Baptism. That this was of no use in penitential
Discipline to Persons once baptized. 3. Of the Absolution granted by
the . Eucharist. 4. Of Absolution declaratory and effective by the
Administration of the Word and Doctrine. 5. Of the precatory Abso
lution given by Imposition of Hands and Prayer. 6. Of the Judicial
Absolution of Penitents by restoring them to the Peace and full Com
munion of the Church.

CHAP. II.
Of the Circumstances, Rites and Customs anciently observed in
the public Absolution of Sinners.
Sect. 1. No Sinners anciently absolved, till they had performed their regu
lar Penance, except in Case of imminent Death. 2. Penitents publicly
reconciled in Sackcloth at the Altar. 3. Sometimes more publicly be
fore the Apsis, or Reading-desk. 4. Absolution at the^ Altar always
given in a supplicatory Form by Imposition of Hands and Prayer. 5.
Absolution in the indicative Form, Ego te absolvo, not used till the
twelfth Century. 6. In what Sense that Form may be allowed. 7.
Why Chrism or Unction was sometimes added to Imposition of Hands
in the Reconciliation of certain Heretics and Schismatics to the Church.
8. Why some Heretics could be reconciled no other way but by a new
Baptism. 9. What Conditions were required of those, who fell from
the Church into any Heresy or Schism, when they were reconciled to
the Church again, 10. Of the Time of Absolution. 11. How the
Church absolved some Penitents, and received them into Communion
after Death.

XVI CONTENTS.

CHAP. III.

Of the Minister of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and particularly of
the Minister of Absolution.
Sect. 1. All the Power of Discipline primarily lodged in the Hands of the
Bishop. — 2. This in many Cases committed to Presbyters, either by a
general or particular Conr.mission. — 3. And to Deacons also. — 4. How
far, and in what Sense Absolution might be said to be given by a
Layman.

THE
ANTIQUITIES OF THE

CHRISTIAN CHURCH

BOOK XVI.
OF THE UNITY AND DISCIPLINE OF THE
ANCIENT CHURCH.

CHAP. I.
Of the Union and Communion observed in the Ancient
Church.
Sect. 1. — Of the fundamental Unity of Faith and Obedience to the Laws
of Christ.
The design of ecclesiastical discipline being chiefly to
preserve the unity of the Church in all necessary things,
and keep it in purity, and free from corruption,, by turning
out unworthy members from her society and communion,
and denying them all the privileges that belong to it;
nothing will be more proper to usher .in a discourse con
cerning the discipline of the ancient Church, than first to
give a preliminary account of that union and communion,
which she laboured to preserve in all her members united in
one mystical body under Christ, her universal head. And
We first of all, the unity of faith was principally insisted on,
.s the foundation, on which all other sorts of Christian unity
. 'ere built : and next to this, they required the unity of ho-
VOL. VI. B

2 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
liness or obedience, that the Church might be one in ob
serving all the laws and institutions of Christ.* Some
reckon thefirstsortof unity fundamental and essential to the
very being of the Church, and all others only necessary to
the well-being of it. But I conceive the Ancients account
ed both the unity of faith and obedience necessary as funda
mentals to the very being of the Church,2 being both joined
together by our Saviour, as the rock on which his Church
should be built. For, as he says of faith, " Upon this rock
will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre
vail against it," Matth. xvi. 18. So he says of obedience to
his laws, " Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and
doth them, I will liken him to a wise man, which built his
house upon a rock : and the rain descended, and the floods
came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house: and it
fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. But every one,
thatheareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall
be likened unto a foolish man, wbieh built his house upon the
sand : and the rain descended and the floods came, and the
winds blew, and beat upon that house ; and it fell : and great
was the fall of it." Matth. vii. 26-27. St. Luke, in relating the
same passage, words it thus : " he that heareth, and doeth not,
is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon
the earth, against which the stream did beat vehemently, and
immediately it fell; and tbe ruin of that house was great."
Luke vi. 49. So that obedience, as well as faith, is part of
that foundation upon which the Church of Christ is built :
and he, that retains not the unity of obedience, wants an es
sential part of its foundation, and is not a real living mem
ber of Christ's mystical body ; but only a broken, or a
withered branch of it. In regard to which, our Saviour
says in another place, " Whosoever shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so ; he shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven," Matth. v. 19.
Upon this account, when he sent his Apostles to teach
all nations, he enjoined them two things, first, " To baptise

1 Clsget of Church Unity, p. 196. » Vide Aug. de Unit. Eccles.
cap. xxi.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 3
them in the name, (or faith) of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost :" and secondly, " To teach them
to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them."
Matth. xxviii. 20. And for the same reason the ancient
Church never admitted any persons to baptism,, which was
the ordinary door of admitting proselytes, and uniting them
as members to the body of the Church, without first obli
ging them to do these two things : first, to make profession
of the primary articles of the Christian faith : and secondly,
to promise, or bind themselves by a strict engagement and
vow, to live in holy obedience to the laws and institutions
of Christ. As I have fully shewn in a former book,1 treat
ing of the necessary conditions required of men before their
baptism. Where I have particularly remarked out of
St. Austin, that he wrote that excellent book, De Fide et
Operibus, to shew the necessity of obedience and good
works, as well as faith, to the being of a Christian : against
some who pretended, that fhe profession of faith in Christ,
and not the profession of obedience to his laws, was neces
sarily to be required of men, in order to unite them as Chris
tians to the body of the Church by baptism. They said,
men were to be baptised, and united to the Church, so long
as they kept the foundation of faith entire, whatever wicked
works they built thereupon : for these would be purged
away by certain punishments of fire, and they would obtain
salvation at the last by virtue of the foundation, which they
retained. To which St. Austin replies, that this was a false
interpretation of the Apostle's meaning ; and that however
these men were so impudent, as to charge the Church's
practice with novelty; yet it was always a firm custom obtain
ing in the Church, to reject professed workers of iniquity
from baptism, and constantly refuse them the communion of
the Church : and this was grounded upon the rules of an
cient truth, which manifestly declared, that they, which
do such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Since therefore both faith and obedience were reckoned
essentially necessary to baptism, they must be concluded

Book. ii. chap. vii. sect. 6.
B 2

4 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
equally necessary to preserve men in the real and perfect
unity of the Church ; unless we could suppose, that any
thing was necessary to make a man a Christian, that was not
necessary to make or keep him a member of the Church.
If it be now inquired, what articles of faith, and what
points of practice were reckoned thus fundamental, or es
sential to the very being of a Christian, and the union of
many Christians into one body or Church : the Ancients are
very plain in resolving this. For as to fundamental articles
of faith, the Church had them always collected or summed
up out of Scripture in her creeds, the profession of which
was ever esteemed both necessary on the one hand, and
sufficient on the other, in order to the admission of mem
bers into the Church by baptism ; and consequently both
necessary and sufficient to keep men in the unity of the
Church, so far as concerns the unity of faith generally re
quired of all Christians, to make them one body and one
Church of believers. Upon this account, as I have had oc
casion to shew in a former book,1 the creed was commonly
called by the Ancients, the Kavwv and Regula Fidei, be
cause it was the known standard or rule of faith, by
which orthodoxy and heresy were judged and examined.
If a man adhered to this rule, he was deemed an orthodox
Christian, and in the union of the Catholic faith : but if he
deviated from it in any point, he was esteemed as one that
bad cut himself olT, and separated from the communion of
the Church, by entertaining heretical opinions, and desert
ing the common faith. Thus the Fathers, in the Council of
Antioch,2 charge Paulus Samosatensis with departing from
the rule or canon, meaning the Creed, the rule of faith, be
cause he denied the divinity of Christ. Jrenaeus calls it
the unalterable canon or rule of faith :s And says;* this faith
was the same in all the world ; men professed it with one
heart and one soul : for though there were different dialects
in the world, yet the power of the faith was one and the
same. The Churches in Germany had no other faith or tra-

1 Book x. chap. iii. sect. 2. » Epist. Con. Ant. ap. Euseb.
lib. vii. u. 3D. 8 Iren. lib. i. cap. i. p. 44. ? ibid. cap. iii.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. §
dition, than those in Spain, or in Franco, or in the East, or
Egypt, or Libya. Nor did the most eloquent ruler of the
Church, say any more than this ; for no one was above his
master : nor the weakest diminish any thing of this tradition.
For the faith being one and the same, he that said most of
it, could not enlarge it ; nor he, that said least, take any
thing from it. So Tertullian says,1 there is one rule of
faith only, which admits of no change or alteration, that
which teaches us to believe in one God Almighty, the maker
of the world, and in Jesus Christ his Son, &e. This rule,,
he says,9 was instituted by Christ Himself, and there were
no disputes in the Church about it, but such as heretics
brought in, or such as made heretics. To know nothing
beyond this, was to know all things. This faith3 was the
the rule of believing from the beginning of the Gospel, and
' the antiquity of it was sufficiently demonstrated by the no
velty of heresies, which were but of yesterday's standing in
comparison of it. Cyprian says,* it was the law, which the
whole Catholic Church held, and that the Novatians them
selves baptised into the same Creed, though they differed
about the sense of the article relating to the Church.
Therefore No vatian, in his book of the Trinity,5 makes no
scruple to give the Creed the same name, Regula Veritatis,
the rule of truth. And St. Jerom after the same manner,6
disputing against the errors of the Montanists, says, the
first thing they differed about, was the rule of faith. For
the Church believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to
'be each distinct in his own person, though united in sub
stance: but the Montanists, following the doctrine of
Sabellius, contracted the Trinity into one person. From
all vhich it is evident, that the fundamental articles of
faith were those, which the primitive Church summed up in
her creeds, in the profession of which she admitted men as
members into the unity of her body by baptism ; and if any-
deserted or corrupted this faith, they were no longer reputed
1 Tertul. de Veland. Virgin, cap. i. B Idem, de Praescript.
advers. Hairelicos. cap. xiii. "* Idem. cont. Prax. cap. ii.
* Cypr. Ep. Ixix. al. 76. ad Magnum, p. 183. 6 Novatian. de Trinit.
cap. i. et ix. 9 Hieron. Ep. liv. ad Marcellam.

6 THK ANT1QU1TIKS OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Christians, but heretics, who brake the unity of the Church
by breaking the unity of the faith, though they had other
wise made no further separation from her communion, t or
as Clemens Alexandrinus says,1 out of Hermes Pastor,
" faith is the virtue that binds and unites the Church toge
ther." Whence Hegesippus, the ancient historian, giving
an account of the old heretics, says,2 " they divided the
unity of the Church by pernicious speeches against God and
his Christ : that is, by denying some of the prime, funda
mental articles of faith. He, that makes a breach upon any
one of these, cannot maintain the unity of the Church,
nor his own character as a Christian." " We ought there
fore," says Cyprian,3 " in all things to hold the unity of the
Catholic Church, and not to yield in any thing to the ene
mies of faith and truth. For he cannot be thought a
Christian,* who continues not in the truth of Christ's Gospel
and faith." " If men be heretics," says Tertullian,6 " they
cannot be Christians." The like is said by Lactantius, and
Jerom, and Athanasius, and Hilary, and many others of the
Ancients, whose sense upon this matter I have fully repre
sented in another place.0 As therefore there was an unity
of faith, necessary to be maintained in certain fundamental
articles in order to make a man a Christian : so these arti
cles were always to be found in the Church's creeds ; the
profession of which was esteemed keeping the unity of
the faith ; and deviating in any point from' them, was es
teemed a breach of that one faith, and a virtual departing
from the unity of the Church.
As to the other points of obedience to the laws and in-

1 Clem. Strom, lib. ii. p. 458. Edit. Oxon 'H avvkxnaa rrjv tKKKnoiav
aperr), ri irtTtc tTt. Hermes Pastor, lib. i. Vision, iii. cap. 8. Prima earum,
quae turrim, (nempe Ecclesiam) continet manu, fides vocatur : per hanc salvi
flunt electi Dei. &c. 2 Hegesip. ap Euseb. lib. iv. cap. xxii.
'TLfikpiaav ti)v evwmv rijc tKicknalac ^&opi/taiotf \6yoic Kara. tS 6£s, &c.
s Cypr. Ep. lxxi. ad Quintum p. 194. Per omnia debemus ecclesias catho
lics unitatem tenere, nee in aliquo fidei et veritatis hostibus cedere.
* Cypr. de Unit. Eccles. p. 114. Nee Christianus videri potest, qui non
perraanet in evangelii ejus et fidei veritate. 6 Tertul. de Prescript.
cap. xxxvii. Si Hsretici sunt, Christiani esse non possunt.
8 Book. i. chap. iii. sect. 4.

BHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 7
stitutions of Christ, which were reckoned fundamental and
essential to the being of a Christian, and the unity of the
Church, they were generally summed up in those short
forms of renouncing the devil and his service, and his
works, and covenanting with Christ to live by the rules of
his Gospel. By which they understood the renouncing all
gross sins, such as idolatry, witchcraft, murder, injustice,
intemperance, uncleanness, and whatever might be called
worldly and fleshly lusts, contrary to the general tenor of
the Gospel, and " the grace of God which had appeared
unto all men, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and
worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and
godly in this present world." They that walked after
this rule, and squared their lives by these general measures
and lines of duty ; " adding to their faith virtue, and to vir
tue knowledge,, and to knowledge temperance, and to tem
perance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness
brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity ;" these
were the true Israel of God, and in the perfect unity of his
Church: as long as they did these things, they could never
fall: nothing could separate them from his Church, or from
the love of God in Christ Jesus : " for so an entrance was
ministered to them abundantly into the everlasting kingdom
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." But if men went
contrary to this rule, " Walking in the works of the flesh,
and not of the Spirit, professing to know God, but in
works denying him ;" though they might be corporeally and
externally united to the visible body of the Church, yet in
ternally and spiritually they were divided from it. St. Austin
says expressly,1 " That though men were regenerated by-
baptism, yet none but the good were spiritually built up into
the body and members of Christ : the good only compose
that Church, of which it is said, ' As the lily among thorns

1 Aug. de Unit. Ecoles. cap. xxi. Nee regenerati spiritaliter in corpus et
Membra Christi ooaBdificentur nisi boni : profecto in bonis est ilia ecclesia,
cui dicitur, Sicut lilium in medio spinarum, ita proxima mea in medio filiaruin.
In his est enim qui aedificant super Petram, id est, qui audiunt verba Christi,
ct faciunt. Non est ergo in eis, qui tedificant super arenaui, id est, qui
audiunt verba Christi, ct non faciunt. &c.

8 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XTI.
so is my love among the daughters. Cant. ii. 2. That Church
consists only of those, who build upon the rock, that is, who
hear the words of Christ, and do them. They therefore are
not of that Church, who build upon the sand, that is, who
hear the words of Christ, and do them not. And as they,
who by the ligaments of charity are incorporated into the
building that is founded upon the rock, and into the lily
that shines among thorns, shall inherit the kingdom of God:
so they, who build upon the sand, and, are numbered among
the thorns, shall as certainly not inherit the kingdom of
God." A little after1 reciting those words of the Apostle,
Gal. v. " The works of the flesh are manifest, which are
these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, Iasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,
strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness,
revellings, and such like ; of the which I tell you before,
as I have also told you in time past, that they which do
such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. " He
adds, " all those are not in the lily, nor upon the roek, and
heretics are in that number." Again, speaking of the grace
of the spirit, which sanctifies good men, he says,8 " This is
wanting in all the wicked, and sons of hell, although they
be baptised with the baptism of Christ, as Simon Magus
was baptised." " There are many such,3 who communi
cate in the sacraments with the Church, and yet they are
not now in the Church. Such are cut off, before they be
visibly excommunicated : and if they be visibly excommu
nicated, and visibly restored to communion ; if they come
with a feigned mind, and an heart opposing the truth and
the Church, they are not reconciled, they are not inserted
into the Church, although the solemnity of reconciliation
be performed upon them." In another place, he says,*
" The wicked multitude of the Church are not reckoned to

1 Aug. de Unit. Eccles. cap. xxii. » Aug. ibid. cap. xxiii. Hoc deest
omnibus malignis et gehennam filiis, etiamsi Christi baptismo baptizentur,
sicut Simon fuerat baptizatus. a ibid. Cap. xxv Multi
tales sunt in sacramentorum communione cum ecclesia, et tamen jam non
sunt in ecclesia. &c. * Aug. ibid. cap. xiii. Sermo divinus
redarguit nnpias turbas ecclesiae, qua nee in ecclesia deputantur, &c.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN 8HURCH. 9
be in the Church, save only so far as they have the same
saqraments in common with the saints, because they have
only a farm of godliness, but deny the power of it." He re
peats the same frequently in his books against Cresconius1
and other places, which it is needless here to repeat at
length. I only observe, that as charity was reckoned one
essential part of a Christian's virtue: our Saviour having
made it the characteristic note of his disciples : " by this
shall all men know that ye aTe my disciples, if ye have love
one foranother :' so the Ancients laid a great stress upon this
one virtue, without which they never reputed any man to be
truly in the unity of the Church, whatever claim he could
otherwise lay to the communion of it.

Sect- 2. — Of the Unity of Love and Charity, as an essential Part of
Christian Obedience.
" I do not think any man," says St. Austin,8 " so vain
and foolish, as to believe such an one to appertain to the
unity of. the Church, who has not charity. For St. James
speaking against those, who thought it sufficient to believe,
but would not do good works, says, Thou believest that
there is one God ; thou dost well : the devils also believe
and tremble. Certainly the devils are not in the unity of
the Church; and yet we cannot say, they believe other
wise of Christ than the Church believes, seeing they said
to the Lord Jesus Christ himself, What have we to do with
Thee, Thou Son of God 1 and St. Paul says, Though I have
all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not
charity, I am nothing." " They that are enemies to this
brotherly charity," says St. Austin again,3 " whether they

1 Aug. cont. Crescon. lib. i. cap. 29. lib. ii.cap. 15,21, 33, 34. Qui cum
sint a bonis vita moribusque spiritaliter separati, corporaliter tamen eis in
ecclesia videntur esse premixti usque in diem judicii. ! Aug.
cont. Crescon. lib. i. cap. 29. Non autem existimo quenquam ita desipere,
ut credat /ad ecclesiae pertinere unitatem euro, qui non habeat charitatem,
&c. 8 Aug. de Bapt. lib. iii: cap. 19. Hujus
autem fraternae charitatis inimici, sive aperte foris sint, sive intus esse vi-
deantur, pseudochristiani sunt et antichristi. Cum intus videntur, ab ilia
invisibili charitatis compage separati sunt. &c.

10 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
are openly out of the Church, or seem to be within, they
are false Christians and Antichrists. When they seem to
be within, they are separated from that invisible union or
bond of charity. Whence St. John says of them, They
went out from us; but they were not bf us. He does not
say, they were made aliens by going out, but because they
were aliens before, he declares, that therefore they went
out." " This charity was necessary to incorporate men
into that building,1 which was founded upon the rock, of
obedience, without which it could not stand : to uphold the
structure, charity was required as a principal part of the
foundation, whereupon the whole building rested, being
fitly framed together, and united by charity into one, as
members of the mystical body of Christ."
Sect. 3. — Other Sorts of Unity necessary to the Well-being of the
Church.
After this manner the Ancients commonly discoursed of
these sorts of unity, which I call fundamental to the very
being of a Church ; being so absolutely necessary and es
sential, as that the Church could not consist without them^
they were necessary to every individual, and necessary in all
cases and circumstances whatsoever : there being no case,
in which it was lawful to deny the faith ; nor any case that
could dispense with a man's obligations to sobriety, godli
ness, righteousness and charity. There were other sorts of
unity, necessary indeed to the well-being of the Church, but
yet not so absolutely essential, but that a man in some ex
traordinary cases and circumstances might be incapacitated
or hindered in the actual performance of them, without in
curring the censure of breaking the unity of the Church, or
being wholly excluded out of her communion. It is every
Christian's duty to unite himself to the Church by baptism,
and to receive it from the hands of a regular ministry ; it
is his duty to join in communion with tbe Church where he

' Vid. Aug. deUnit. cap. xxi. Compagc charitatis incorporati sunt sedifi-
cto super petram constituto.

CHAP. 1.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. II
lives, and assemble with them for worship and prayers, and'
administration of the word and sacraments, and all other
holy offices ; it is his duty to live under the government of
a regular and lawful ministry, and submit himself to all the
rules of the Church in worship and discipline, that are not
contrary or repugnant to the word of God : but then it may
happen, that a man cannot have baptism, though he be
never so desirous of it; sudden death may prevent him,
whilst he is seriously preparing for it. In this case, the
Church did not deny him her communion, though he was
never formally entered into it, but accepted the will for the
deed, and treated him after death as one of her sons dying
in her bosom and communion. Which was the case of many
maTtyrs, and others dying without baptism, not out of con
tempt, but by the exigence of some unforeseen accident
preventing them. So again, it might happen, that a man in
extremity, when he was desirous of baptism, could not have
it but from the hands of an heretic, or a layman. In this
ease the Church was equally favourable to the party so
baptised, because he was united in heart and will to the
Church, and it was not contempt of her ministry, but
necessity that drove him to receive baptism from an heretic
or a layman, rather than die without it. In like manner, a
man, that was very desirous to join with the Church in her
publie assemblies, might notwithstanding by some great
exigence be debarred from this privilege, as by sickness, or
imprisonment, or banishment: in which case he was not
divided from the communion of the Church in worship or
prayers ; but his spirit was still present in her religious
assemblies, though necessity obliged him in. body to be
absent from them. Or if it were but the care of the indi
gent, that required his help, and kept him away from the
solemn meeting in God's house, his reason was good, and'
such an act was no breach of Christian unity, because God
himself allows it; nay, requires it by his own rule, " I will
have mercy, and not sacrifice :" which in such eases, where
men act sineerely, and trifle not with God, is always their
justification both before God, and his Church. It was
further required, that men should comply with all the inno-

12 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
cent customs, and lawful orders of the Church ; and
especially submit to her discipline in case of any scandalous
transgression or immorality : but if men by reason of sickness,
or infirmity, or old age, could not observe her rules about fast
ing; or by reason of their poverty could not abstain from
their ordinary labour to attend her festivals ; these were not
reckoned transgressions of her rules, or good order, because
they naturally admitted of such limitations and exceptions :
and no man was accused as a divider of the Church s unity
for going against her customs in such cases. So though it
was required, that penitents under discipline should be
reconciled to the Church by imposition of hands and abso
lution; yet if any real penitent, who was desirous of
absolution, happened to be struck dumb, ot die before he
could receive it; this was reckoned no prejudice to his con
dition : in this case, his good will, and desire, and intention
of being reconciled, was reputed sufficient to restore him to
the peace and unity of the Church, though he wanted the
formality of an external absolution.
This was the great difference between those sorts of
unity, which were reckoned fundamental, and essential to
the very being of a Church and those which were required
as necessary to the well-being of it: the former admitted
of no dispensations ; but the latter did in these and the
like cases. No case could dispense with a man's putting
away a good conscience, or making shipwreck of faith : no
necessity could be so great as to justify a man in denying
an essential or fundamental truth, or in living in open and
professed violation of those necessary rules and great lines
of duty, which require the practice of universal holiness in
a godly, righteous, sober life, as the indispensable condition
of salvation : but several necessities might dispense with
men in the non-observance of the things of the latter kind;
and therefore it is of great use carefully to distinguish these
things m speaking of the unity of the Church. As there
fore I have spoken particularly of the former, so 1 will now
speak a little more distinctly of these latter, and shew how
far the Ancients urged the necessity of them.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 13

Sect. 4. — Among these they reckoned, First, the necessary Use of one
Baptism, ordinarily to be administered by the Hands of a regular
Ministry. And here first of all they required, that men should unite
themselves to the Church by baptism ; and that administered
but once ; and this also to be administered ordinarily
by the hands of a regular ministry, except some urgent
necessity obliged them to do otherwise. The necessity of
baptism they urged from the tenour of the commission
given to the Apostles, " Go, baptise all nations:" and
from those words of our Saviour, John iii. 5. " Except a
man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God." There were many heretics, who
contemned the use of water-baptism, as a carnal ordinance,
and wholly denied the necessity of it to salvation in any
case whatsoever, of whom I have given a particular account
in a former book.1 Against these they urged the necessity
of baptism in all ordinary cases, to make men members of
the Church ; and strenuously maintained, that men who
wilfully neglected or despised baptism, could not by any
other means be united to the Church of Christ, or have any
grounds for hope of eternal life ; because they despised
that ordinance of Christ, which he had made the regular
and ordinary way of admitting members into his Church,
and refused to enter by that door, which he had appointed
to be the general entrance to eternal life. This opinion of
the Ancients concerning the necessity of baptism in all
ordinary cases, maintained against those several heresies,
the reader may find fully discoursed in a foregoing part of
this work f where I observed, that though they strictly
urged the necessity of baptism in order to make men mem
bers of the Church; and sons of God; expressing them
selves severely against all that either carelessly neglected
it, or profanely despised it ; yet they did not believe it to be
so simply and absolutely necessary as the unity of faith and

1 Bookii. <a. ii. * Bookx. chap. ii. sect. 19.

14 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI
repentance : because they always maintained, that the bare
want of baptism, where there was no contempt, might be
supplied by martyrdom ; where the exhibiting of faith, and
the greatest testimony of obedience that could be given,
was sufficient to unite them to Christ and his Church in that
ease, and grant them all the privileges of Christian com
munion. And the like was determined concerning the faith
and repentance of such catechumens, as were piously pre
paring for baptism, but were snatched away by ^sudden
death before they had any opportunity to receive it. Which
shews, that they put a manifest difference between the
unity of faith and obedience, as fundamental and essential
to the very being of a Church, the want of^ which nothing
could supply; and the unity of baptism, which though
ordinarily necessary to the well-being of the Church, yet
was not so absolutely necessary and essential, but that the
want of it might be supplied in some cases by faith and
obedience ; and by these a martyr or a pious catechumen
might be presumed to die in the unity of the Church with
out baptism, when they had no opportunity to receive it.
The form of baptism itself indeed, whenever it was ad
ministered, was a little more necessary, because that
implied a profession of faith in the Holy Trinity, and uni
versal obedience to the laws of Christ ; and therefore bap
tism administered in any other form was reputed null and
void even in the Church itself, and was of necessity to be
repeated; but then this necessity did not rise from the bare
necessity of baptism, which might, as we have heard, be
dispensed with in some cases, but from the necessity of
faith and obedience, presupposed as antecedent qualifications,
essential to the very being of a Church, and the character
of a Christian in the largest denomination. So that what
made this so absolutely necessary, was not the absolute
necessity of baptism itself, which might be dispensed|with
in some extraordinary cases, where those qualifications
were really in the hearts of men before baptism : but it was
the want of those qualifications, or at least the want of
professing them in due form, that made the baptism void ;
because there was a strong presumption, that they had not

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 15
those qualifications that were essential to the very being of
a Christian, since no profession was made of them in their
baptism. For which reason, whether it was given in the
Church, or out of the Church, it was always to be repeated,
as a thing null and void, for want of those qualifications of
faith and obedience, which were so indispensably required
to make a man a Christian.
It was necessary also to the unity of the Church in its
well-being, that baptism should ordinarily be administered
only by the hands of a regular ministry : and therefore for
either laymen without a commission in. the Church to usurp
this authority, or for heretics and schismatics without the
Church to assume this power, was always esteemed a great
breach of the Church's unity. And though the Church did
not always annul such baptisms, if given in due form of
words ; yet she always condemned the thing as an usurpa
tion, and an act of criminal schism, and manifest prevari
cation both in the giver and voluntary receiver. Insomuch
that one of the ancient Councils orders,1 " that if any
Catholic offered his children to be baptised by heretics, his
oblation should not be received in the Church." This was
in effect to punish him with excommunication, as an en-
courager of heretics, and a divider of the unity of the
Church. And St. Jerom says,2 to the same purpose, " if
a man, who is orthodox in his own faith, is wittingly and
willingly baptised by heretics, he deserves no pardon for
bis crime. " But then it might happen, that a man in ex
tremity might be so distressed as to have none bnt an here--
tic to baptise him ; m which case to receive baptism from
the hands of an heretic or schismatic, was reckoned no
breach of Catholic unity, because the man in heart and
mind was still united to the Catholic Church. This is St.
Austin's3 resolution of the case. " If a man," says he,

1 Con. Ilerdense. can. xiri. Catholictis, qui fiTios snos in haeresi bap-
ttzandos obtulerit, oblatio illius in ecclesia nullatenus recipiatur.
2 Hierora. Dial, eum Lucifer, cap. v. Si jam ipse bene credebat, et sciens
ab hsereticis baptraatus est, erroris veniam non meretur.
* Aug. deftapt. lib. i. cap. ii. Si quem forte coegerit extrema necessi-
tas, ubi catholicum per quem aecipiat non invenerit, at in animo pae«

It5 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK

XVI.

•' is compelled by extreme necessity, where he cannot have
a Catholic to give him baptism, to take it at the hands of
one who is not in Catholic unity ; in that case we reckon him
no other than a Catholic still, though he died immediately,
because he was in heart and mind a Catholic, and would
have been baptised in Catholic unity, if there had been anyt
opportunity to have done it. If such an one survives, and
corporally joins himself to the Catholic congregation, from
which in heart he never departed, we not only not disallow
what he has done, but securely and truly commend him for
it: because he believed God to be present in his heart,
where he preserved unity, and would not depart out of this
life without the sacrament of baptism, which he knew to
be God's, and not men's, wheresoever he found it. But if
any one, when he might receive it in the Catholic Church,
by some perverseness of mind, chuses rather to be baptised
in schism, though he afterward design to return to the
Church, because he is certain the sacrament will profit him
in the Church, but not elsewhere, though he may receive it
elsewhere: this is a perverse and wicked man, and so much
the more perniciously such, by how much the' more know
ing he is." In another place he proposes the same
question, whether a Catholic without breach of unity might
receive baptism from a schismatic ? and he answers it after
the same manner,1 " that he may safely receive it of a
separatist, if he himself be no separatist, when he receives
it; for so it often happens to men, who have a Catholic
mind, and an heart no ways alienated from the unity of
peace, that in extreme necessity and danger of imminent
death they light upon some heretic, and receive the baptism
of Christ at his hands, but not with the perverseness, or

catholics custodita, per aliquem extra catholicam unitatem acceperit, quod
erat in ipsa catholica unitate accepturus, si statim etiam de hac vita mi-
graverit, non eum nisi catholicum deputamus, &c.
1 Aug. de Bapt. lib. vi. cap. 5. Potest salubriter accipere a separate, si
ipse non separatus aecipiat: sicut plerisque accidit, ut catholico animo et
corde ab unitate pacis non alienato, aliqul necessitate mortis urgentis in
*liquem hasreticum irruerent, et ab eo Christi baptismum sine illius perversi-
tate acciperent, &c.

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 17
heretical pravity of the administrator. For whether they
die or live, they do not remain among heretics, to whom in
heart they never went over." So again, distinguishing
baptised persons into three sorts ; first, such as are baptised
in the house of God, and are truly and spiritually of the
house of God ; secondly, such as are baptised in the house
of God, but are spiritually by wicked works separated from
it; thirdly, such as are baptised in heresy or schism, who
are corporally separated from the house of God, and worse
than those who live carnally within it, and are only spiritu
ally divided from it; he adds concerning this last sort,1 who
are rather to be said to be of the house of God, than in it,
being further separated by corporal division, than those who
are only spiritually divided from it, that they neither have
baptism to any profit themselves, neither is it received with
any profit from them, except where the necessity of receiving
it forces a man to receive it from them, and the mind of the
receiver does no ways recede from the bond of unity. By
which is intimated that to receive baptism in case of
necessity from the bands of an heretic or schismatic, does
not involve a man in the guilt of schism, so long as it is a
case of extreme necessity, and the man in heart and mind
is all the time in the unity of the Catholic Church.
The case was the same with those that were baptised by
laymen. The rules of the Church required, that none
should baptise in ordinary cases, but the regular and lawful
ministers of the Church ; and to do otherwise, was always
a note of criminal schism : but in case of extremity, she
granted a general commission even to laymen to baptise,
rather than any person in such an exigence should die
without baptism; and in such a case, to receive baptism
from a layman, was neither usurpation nor schism in the
giver or receiver, because they had the Church's authority
for the action. I produce no proofs or evidence for this

1 Aug. de Bapt. lib. vii. cap. 52. Qui autein separatiores non magis in
domo quam ex domo sunt, neque omnino utiliter habent, neque ab eis utiliter
accipitur, nisi forte accipiendi necessitas urgeat, et accipientis animus ab
unitatis vinculo non recedat.
V»L. VI. c

13 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
here, because I have done it fully in a separate discourse
before, treating historically of the practice of the ^h™
in reference to her allowance of baptism administered by
laymen, in cases extraordinary, when men were m apparent
danger of death, and could not have a minister to baptise
them. In all these eases, we see, nothing but extreme necessity
could excuse men from criminal schism, in dividing them
selves from the Church, either by the neglect of baptism,
or seeking to heretics, or schismatics, or laymen for the
administration of it. And the like is to be said of any
man's suffering himself to be rebaptised, after he had
once received a true baptism, whether in the Church or out
of it. For the unity of baptism was such, that it was
never to be repeated." The greatest apostates were never
rebaptised by the Catholic Church upon their admission
ao-ain, but taken in by imposition of hands and absolution
upon their repentance. Neither did the Church ever re-
baptise those that were baptised in heresy or schism, except
when some doubt was made, whether the baptism was de
fective in some essential part of it. And therefore because
many heretics were inclined to rebaptise the Catholics, very
severe laws were made both in Church and State, to repress
this insolence : of which I have give A a particular account
in handling the subject of baptism heretofore,1 and need
only now observe, that this practice of rebaptising was always
esteemed a schismatical act, and a notorious breach of Ca
tholic unity, which never allowed of more than one baptism,
according to that rule of the Apostle, " One Lord,, one
faith, one baptism," in the Church, as many of the Ancients
expound it ; or at least, because by the divine will it was
so appointed.
Sect. 5.— 2dly, The Unity of Worship in joining with the Church in
Prayers, Administration of the Word, and Sacraments.
Another sort of unity, requisite to the well-being of
the Church, was the unity of worship, whereby all Chris-

1 Book xii. chap. v. sect. 7.

CHAP. l.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 13
tians were obliged to join with their respective Churches
in the performance of all holy offices in public ; such as
common-prayer, and the administration of the word and sa
craments. Which did not require, that all Churches should
exactly agree in the same form of words, which were not
essential to these things : for, as we shall presently see,
every Church was at liberty to make choice for herself, in
what method and form of words she should perform these
things: and it was no breach of unity for different Churches
to have different modes, and circumstances, and ceremonies,
in performing the same holy offices, so long as they kept
to the substance of the institution: but that, which was re
quired to keep the unity of the Church in these matters, was,
that every particular member of any Church should com
ply with the particular custom and usages of his own
Church, (nothing being inserted into her offices that was un
lawful,) and meet for religious worship, and hold constant
communion with her in the performance of all divine service.
And to do otherwise, either by neglecting wholly the service
of religious assemblies, or setting up opposite communions,
or raising unnecessary disputes about the lawful usages and
innocent practices of the Church, whereof a man was a
member, was always esteemed an act of criminal schism,
as giving scandal and offence to the Church and his bre
thren. There are several canons in the Council of Gangra,
made against the separatists called Enstathians, directly to
this purpose. The fourth canon runs thus: " If any one
separate from a married presbyter, upon pretence that it is
unlawful to partake of the oblation, when he performs the
Litursrv, or celebrates the office of communion, let him
be anathema, that is, excommunicate, or cut off from the
Church." The fifth canon is to the same effect: " If any
one teach, that the house of God, and the assemblies held
therein, are to be despised, let him be anathema." The sixth
forbids all private and irregular assemblies : " If any hold
other assemblies privately out of the Church, and contemning
the Church will have ecclesiastical offices performed
without a presbyter licensed by the bishop, let him be ana
thema." The eleventh censures those in like manner, who
despised the feasts of charity, made in honour of the Lord,
c3

20 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
refusing to partake of them. The eighteenth censures such
as fasted on the Lord's day, under pretence of leading an
ascetic life; this being a thing contrary to the general rule
and custom of the Church. The nineteenth, on the other
hand, censures such ascetics, as without the excuse ot
bodily infirmity, out of mere pride, contemptuously broke
the common fasts handed down by tradition to be observed
in the Church. And the twentieth canon anathematises
those, who, from an insolent disposition, contemned the
assemblies that were wont to be held in the churches of
the martyis, and the service performed there, and the com
memorations of them. Among the Apostolical Canons
there is one to the same purpose, which orders,1 " that if
any presbyter, despising his bishop, gather a separate con
gregation, and erect another altar, having nothing to ob
ject against his bishop in point of godliness or righteousness,
he should be deposed as a lover of pre-eminence, and ar-
bitary power or tyranny in the Church. And if any of the
clergy conspired with him, they were likewise to be deposed,
and laymen to be suspended from the communion, after a
third admonition given them from the bishop." These were
some of the ancient rules relating to separatists, dividing
wholly from the Church, and refusing contemptuously to com
municate with her in divine service. And for such as frequen
ted some part of the service, but fell off from the rest, she
set an equal mark of reproach upon them, as disobedient
children also. One of the Apostolical Canons orders all
communicants,2 who came to Church to hear the Scriptures
read, but did not stay to join in prayers and receiving the
eucharist, to be suspended, as authors of confusion and
disorder in the Church. And the Council of Antioch3
repeats, and reinforces this canon. The Council of Eliberis*
forbids the bisljop to receive the oblations of such as did
not communicate : which was in effect to cut them off
from communion with the Church, for the neglect of that
principal part of divine service. The same Council in ano-

1 Canon. Apost. xxxi. ! Canon. Apost. vii.
3 Con. Antioch. can. ii. * Con. Eliber. can. xxviii. Vid.
Con. Tolet. i. can. 13.

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 21
ther canon orders,1 " that if any one, being at home in his
own city, did for three Lord's days together absent himself
from church, he should be suspended from the communion
for an equal term, that he might be made sensible of
his crime by the Church's censure." The Council of
Sardica, not long after, made a decree to the same purpose,
referring to some former canon that had been made upon
this matter, which, though some learned men are at a loss
to know what canon it was, seems plainly to be this canon
of the Council of Eliberis. For Hosius, bishop of Corduba,
was present at both these councils, and presided in that of
Sardica, which makes it probable, that he referred to the
canon of Eliberis, when he proposed it to the Fathers at
Sardica for their consent and approbation. For the Council
of Sardica9 repeats a canon made in some former Council,
.mporting, that a layman absenting from church for three
Lord's days together, without just cause or impediment,
was to be excommunicated for his transgression. And the
same is repeated in the Council of Trullo.3 So careful
was the Church to preserve her members in the unity of di
vine worship, and discountenance all separatists whether
partial or total, that an occasional communicant was liable
to censure as well as any other.
But then there were some necessary reasons, that might
justly excuse a man from this duty of constant communion
with his own Church. As if a man was in a journey, the
very nature of the thing was his excuse : for he could not
communicate with his own Church in such a necessity, and
therefore the Council of Trullo delivers the rule with that
limitation. If a man was sick End infirm, his infirmity was
such an impediment, as all laws both human and divine
would allow of as a reasonable cause of absenting. And
the same reason would excuse his non-observance of the
severe fasts of the Church, which were imposed upon none
but those that were able to bear them, as appears from the

1 Con. Eliber. can. xxi. Si quis in civitate positus, tres dominicas ec
clesiam non accesserit, tanto tempore abstineat, ut correptus esse vide-
atur. 2 Con. Sardic. can. xi.
3 Con. Trull, can. lxxx.

22 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI
forecited canon of the Council of Gangra.1 The stationary
days of fasting and prayer were chiefly designed for the
exercise of religious ascetics, those who had both strength
and leisure to atterfd them: and therefore an infirm man,
or a poor man, who was to live by his bodily labour, was
under no obligation to spend so much time in those ordinary
returns of fasting and prayer. If he communicated with
the Church religiously on the Lord's days, his omissions of
the rest were not imputed to him as breaking communion
with the Church. If men were in prison or in banishment,
the necessityof their confinement Was their natural excuse.
For how should they join -bodily in communion with the
Church, who had not the liberty of their own bodies, whilst
they were entirely at the mercy and disposal of others'?
It was sufficient for them in such a case to join in spirit,
when they could not in bodily presence ; and to say with
David, "As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, so
panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for
God, for the living God: When shall I come and appear
before God 1" psal. xlii. 1. And, " Woe is me, that I am
constrained to dwell with Mesech, and to have my habita
tion among the tents of Kedar." psal. cxx. 4. " O God,
my soul thirsteth for Thee, my flesh longeth after Thee, in a
dry and thirsty land, where no water is ; to see thy power
and thy glory, so as I have seen Thee in the sanctuary," psal.
Ixiii. 1. It was their misfortune, and not their crime in
that case to be absent from the house of God : mean while
the whole World was to them the temple of God: " For
the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof:" their pri
son was their oratory, and the wilderness a sanctuary ¦
their own hearts a sacrifice, and their own bodies an altar!
When Lucian the martyr made use of his own breast in
chains instead of a communion-table to offer the euchaiist
on, his sacrifice was as acceptable to God, as if it had been
in the midst of the Church upon an altar. For as St.
Basil words it,2 in such a case it is not the place, but the

1 Con. Gangren. can. xix. ' Basil Exhort, ad Bant. .1
ii-ii ap. Durant. dc Ritrbus, lib. i. cap. S.

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 23
mind and affection of the suppplicant, that God regards.
Moses was heard in the bottom of the sea, Job upon a
dunghill, Ezekias in his bed, Jeremy in the dungeon, Jonas
in the whale's belly, Daniel in the lion's den, the three chil
dren in the burning fiery furnace, the penitent thief upon
the cross, and Peter and Paul in prison. " Every place,"
says Dionysius of Alexandria,1 " is instead of a temple in
time of persecution, whether it be a field, or a wilderness,
or a ship, or an inn, or a prison." There is a great diffe
rence to be made between necessity and contempt. If a
man voluntarily absents himself from the assemblies of the
Church, when he may enjoy them, he is a divider of her
unity, by contemning her service : but if necessity obli
ges him to be absent, when he is desirous to be present,
he is spiritually present with her even whilst he is absent in
body: which is as much preserving her unity, as his case
will allow, or the Church can require : seeing this sort of
unity is not simply essential to the being of a Church in all
states, but only necessary to her well-being in peaceable
times and ordinary cases. And happy would it be for the
Church, if men would never deny themselves the benefit of
her communion in religious assemblies, but upon such rea
sons of necessity, which carry their own apology at first
sight in their very nature : if they were merely passive,
and not active, in their separation, suGh a separation would
not involve them in the guilt of schism, being so rationally
to be accounted for both before God and his Church. The
primitive Church was exceedingly happy in these two things,
which relate to this sort of unity in communion, the want.
of which is so much to be lamented both in its causes and
effects in this unhappy divided state of the Church in later
ages ; First. That no Church then ever assumed to herself
an authority of imposing upon her members any things un
lawful, or contrary to the word of God, either in faith or
practice, as necessary terms of communion, they required
no belief of any articles of faith, as necessary to salvation,
but such as were contained in their common creeds', and

Ap. Euseb. lib. vii. cap. 22.

24 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
founded upon the infallible authority of Scripture. They
inserted nothing into their public forms of worship, repug
nant to the word of God, or intrenching upon any divine
rule given in Scripture about .the object or matter or manner
of adoration, as any one may perceive, by considering the'
account that has been given of their public worship and
Liturgy in the three last books, where we examined every
particular office of it. Things being; thus secured for the
substance of their worship, all Christian people in the next
place thought it their duty to submit to the wisdom and
prudence of their governors in establishing things external
and circumstantial, relating to expedience, edification, and
good order. And this was the second thing to be admired
in the economy of the ancient Church, that the people
never had any dispute with their superiors about matters
of this kind, but left all indifferent things, and things of
expediency, decency, circumstance, and form, to the judg
ment and choice of their governors, or persons invested
with authority to determine such matters ; readily comply
ing with the innocent customs of the Church, and all the
rules of public order, and never dividing into sects and par
ties upon the account of rites and ceremonies, though diffe
rently practiced in different Churches. This was according
to the wise and peaceable rule laid down by St. Austin in his
advice to Casulanus : " in those things,"1 says he, " concern
ing which the holy Scripture has given no positive direction,
the custom of the people of God, or the rules of onr an
cestors or superiors are to be taken for a law." He instances
in the custom of the Church, never to fast on the Lord's day,
which was become so much a rule, that whoever should
pretend to introduce the contrary custom, to make it a fast,
should be thought to give great scandal to the Church, and
that not without good reason. Nay, he says, it would be to

1 Aug. Ep. lxxxvi. ad Casulan. In his enim rebus, de quibus nihil certi
statuit Scriptura divina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta majorum pro lege
tenenda sunt..  Quisquis hunc diemjejunio decernendum putaverit, non
parvo scandalo erit ecclesiae, nee immerito.  Quis non Deum offendet si
velit cum scandalo totius, qua ubique dilatata est, ecclesiae, die dominico
jejunarc ?

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 25
offend God, so to scandalize the universal Church by
holding a fast on the Lord's day; especially since it was
become the practice of the impious Manichees so to fast in
opposition to the Church. The Saturday fast was not a
custom of so general observation ; for some Churches kept
it a fast, and some a festival : but his advice as to this is
much of the same nature, that a man should observe the
custom of every Church,1 where he happened to be, if he
was minded neither to give offence to them, nor take offence
from them; and this advice, he says, he had in his younger
days from the mouth of St. Ambrose. But because in
such a matter as this is, it might happen, that not only diffe
rent Churches might practice differently, but also the
members of the same Church might differ in their practice
one from another without breach of communion, as it was
in some of the African Churches, where in one and the
same Church some chose to fast, others to dine upon the
sabbath, his advice to Casulanus as a presbyter was,2 " to
follow the custom of those, who had the care and govern
ment of the Churches committed to them :" " Resist not
your bishop in such a matter as this, but follow what he
does without any scruple or disputation."
Sect. 6. — Sdly, The Unity of Subjection of Presbyters and People to
their Bishop, and Obedience to all public Orders of the Church in
Matters of an indifferent Nature.
And this leads us to consider another sort of unity, very
necessary for the well-being of the Church : which was,
that the clergj and people should be united under one single
bishop in every Church, paying a due respect to his autho
rity, and not dividing from him, either by setting up anti-
bishops against him, ot withdrawing from his communion

1 Aug. ibid. Ad quamcunque ecclesiam veneritis, ejus morem servate
si pati scandalum non vultis, autfacere. 2 Ibid. Sed quo
niam contingit maxime in Africa ut una ecclesia, vel unius regionis ecclesiae,
alios habeant sabbato prandentes, alios jejunantes, mos eorum mihi sequen-
dus videtur, quibus eorum populorum congregatio regenda commissaest 
Episcopo tuo in hac re noli resistere, et quod facit ipse, sine ullo scrupulo
vel disceptatione sectare.

2(5 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
or government, or despising the publie orders of his Church,
which were made for expedience and edification in matters
of an indifferent nature. Cyprian has abundance relating to
this sort of unity, considering both the state of his own
and other Churches. " The Church," he says,1 " is a
people united to their bishop, aud a flock adhering to their
pastor." Whence he infers, that the bishop is in the Church,
and the Church in the bishop ; and that whoever are not
with the bishop, are not in the Church : that is, none who
voluntarily withdraw from his communion, and set up .others
in opposition to it. To the same purpose he says again,2
" That the ordination of bishops, and the constitution of
the Church came down by succession from the Apostles, so
as that the Church stood upon its bishops, and every act of
the Church was regulated by their direction, as the chief
o-overnors of it." And therefore when some lapsers wrote
to him, giving themselves the name of the Church, he gave
them a very sharp answer, telling them, " He could not
but wonder at their temerity and boldnes, that they should
style themselves the Church, when it was so plain by the
divine law, that a Church consisted of a bishop and clergy
together with a people standing firm withot lapsing in time
of persecution ; whereas no number of lapsers could be
called a Church, since God was not the God of the dead,
but of the living." In another place he severely rebukes
the presumption of those presbyters, w'ho took upon them
selves by their own authority to reconcile lapsers without
consulting him, who was the chief manager and director
of the discipline of the Church. This, he tells them,3

1 Cypr. Ep. lxix. al. lxvi. ad Florentium. p. 168. Ecclesia sunt plebs
sacerdoti aduanta, et pastori suo grex adherens. Unde scire debes episco
pum in ecclesitt esse, et ecclesiam in episcopo; et si qui cum episcopo non
sint, in ecclesia non esse. 2 Cypr. Ep. xxvii. al. xxxiii. ad
Lapsos, p. 66. Inde per temporum et successionum vices, episcoporum or-
dinatio et ecclesia? ratio decurrit, ut ecclesia super episcopos constituatur, et
omnis actus ecclesia per eosdem praepositos gubernetur. Cum hoc itaque
divina lege fundatum sit, miror quosdam audaci temeritate sic mihi scribere
voluisse, utecclesiee nomine literas facerent ; quanJo ecclesia in episcopo
et clero et in omnibus stantibus sit constituta, &c.
* Cypr. Ep. x. al. xvi. ad Clcrum. p. xxxvi. Aliqui deprcsbytcris, ncc evan-

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 27
'! was to forget both the rules of the Gospel, and their own
station ; neither thinking of the future judgment of the
Lord, nor the bishop that was now set over them, but assu
ming to themselves the whole power of discipline, both to
the dishonour and contempt of their bishop, and to the
detriment of their brethren's salvation." It was an ancient rule
in the Church, that presbyters should do no ministerial act
but by the authority of their bishop, and in dependence
upon and subordination to him. This I have had occasion
to shew at large in a former book, out of Ignatius, Cyprian,
and the ancient Councils,1 which need not here be repeated.
Therefore it was always reputed a tendency toward schism,
for presbyters todo any such act in contempt of their bishop,
though they made no formal separatiou from him. But the
most -flagrant act of schism Was, when in despite of his au
thority, their factious humour and pride pushed them on to
divide from his communion, and set up separate assemblies
in opposition to him. " This," says St. Cyprian, " is the
first beginning of heretics, the first rise and attempt of
schismatics, men of evil dispositions, to please themselves,
and with a swelling pride contemn the bishop that is set
over them. The effect of which is presently to forsake the
Church, and set np another profane altar without, and to
rebel against the peace of Christ, and the ordination and
unity of God."2 " Most heresies and schisms take their
birth," (says he again) " from this original,3 that men
refuse to submit to the bishop appointed by God, aud con
sider not that there ought to be but one bishop at once
in a Church, and but one judge in the room of Christ."

elii. nee loci sui memores, sed neque futuiuin Domini judicium, neque
nunc sibi praepositum episcopum cogitantes  cum contumelia et contemptu
propositi totum sibi vendicant, &c.
1 Book ii. chap. iii. sect. 2. &c. * Cypr. Ep. lxv.
al. iii. ad Rogatian. p. 6. Hsec sunt enim initia haereticorum, et ortus atque
conatus schismaticorum male cogitantium, ut sibi placeant, et prapositum
superbo tumore contemnant. Sic de ecclesia receditur, sic altare profanum
foris collocatur, sic contra pacem Christi et ordinationem atque uuitatem Dei
rebellatur. 8 Ep. Iv. al. lxix ad Cornel, p. 129. Neque
enim aliunde haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt scandala, quam inde quod
sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nee unus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdes, et
ad tempus judex vice Christi rogitatur.

28 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
This he speaks particularly against those, who thought to jus
tify their schism by setting-up an anti-bishop in opposition to
the true one: whichdid not diminish the schism, but heighten
and augment it, and commonly render it more inveterate and
lasting. As it was in the case of the Meletians in Egypt,
and the Donatists in Africa, and the Novatians at Rome,
who all carried on their schisms more powerfully by the help
of anti-bishops to strengthen their party, and uphold their
faction. But this was no just pretence for schism; but a
manifest violation of the standing rule of the Catholic
Church, which was, to have but one bishop in a Church as
the centre of unity : and to set up another in opposition to
him, was not to make another true bishop or pastor of the
flock, to whom ihe people were obliged to join themselves
as the minister of God ; but to introduce a wolf, an adulte
rer, a sacrilegious usurper, a stranger and an alien, from
whom they were obliged tj fly, as from one who had no
title to their obedience by any divine appointment or allowed
rule of ordination. I have more than once fully demonstra
ted this1 out of the writings of Cyprian, and others of the
Ancients, to which it is here sufficient to refer the reader.
I only note one thing out of Cyprian, which he applies par
ticularly to the case of the Novatian schism, that to set up
such an anti-bishop to head a faction,2 was to act against
the settlement of the Church, the laws of the Gospel, and
the unity of the catholic institution : it was to make another
Church, to tear the members of Christ, and disjoint that
one body and soul of the Lord's flock by a dividing emula
tion. And therefore he tells Maximus, and Nicostratus,
and other confessors, who were concerned in upholding
and abetting the Novatian schism, " that they were not
asserting the gospel of Christ, whilst they divided themselves
from the flock of Christ, and were not in peace and concord

1 Bookii. chap.xiii. sect. 1. See also Scholast. Hist, of Lay-Baptism,
part ii. chap. 2. » (Jypr. Ep. xliv. al. xlvi. ad Maxim, et Ni-
costrat. Confessores. Gravat me  cum vos illic comperissem contra ec-
clesiasticam dispositionem, contra evangelicam legem, conlra institutionis
catholicfe uuitatem, alium episcopum fieri consensisse, id est, quod nee fas est
nee licet fieri, ecclesiam aliam constitui: Christi membra discerpi, dominici
g regis animum ct corpus unum disc.issa mmulatione lacerari, &c.

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 29
with his Church." It is usual with him upon this account
to say,1 '• He has not God for his father, who has not the
Church for his mother. Whoever is separated from the
Church, to be joined to an adultress, is separated from tho
promises of the Church : he cannot come to the rewards of
Christ, who leaves the Church of Christ: he is an alien,
he is profane, he is an enemy : and that martyrdom itself,
which was accounted in many cases equivalent to baptism,
would not expiate this crime, unless the offended party
returned to the unity of the Church. For what peace,"
says he,3 " can they promise themselves, who die in enmi
ty with their brethren 1 What sort of sacrifices do they
think they offer, who rival the priests with emulation ? Do
they imagine Christ is with them, when they are assembled,
who assemble out of the Church of Christ? Such men
though they be slain for the confession of his name, do not
wash away the stain with their blood. The inexpiable and
grievous crime of dissension is not purged away by their
passion : he cannot be a martyr, that is not in the Church :
he cannot attain to the kingdom, who deserts the Church,
which is to have the kingdom. Christ commended peace
to us ; he commanded us to be unanimous and united toge
ther in concord ; he enjoined us to keep the bonds of love
and charity firm and inviolable. He cannot make himself a
martyr, that retains not brotherly charity. St. Paul teaches
us this, and testifies saying, 'Though 1 have all faith, so
that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. , And though I bestow all my goods to feed the
poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not
charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long
and is kind; charity envieth not; doth not behave itself
unseemly, is not puffed up, is not easily provoked, thinketh
no evil, loveth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all
things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth :' it will

1 Cypr. de Unit. Eccles. p. 109. Habere jam non potest Deum Patrem,
qui ecclesiam non habet matrem, &c. ! Ibid. p. 113. Vid.
Cypr. Ep. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 108. et 114. Ep. lvii. ad Cornel, p. 118. Ep.
lx. ad Cornel.

30 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE 0OOK *VI-
always be in possession of the kingdom ; it will endure for
ever in the unity of that fraternity, which adheres together.
But discord cannot attain to the kingdom of heaven, nor
come to the reward of Christ, who said 'this is my com
mandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you
He cannot appertain to Christ, who violates the love of
Christ by perfidious dissension. He that hath not love,
hath not God. It is the voice of the blessed Apostle
St John:1 'God is love, and he that dwelleth in love
dwelleth in God, and God in him.' They cannot dwell with
God, who would not abide unanimously in the Church of
God': though they burn in the flames, though they be cast
into the fire, or thrown to wild-beasts, and so lay down
their lives ; that will not be the crown of their faith, but
the punishment of their perfidiousness ;not the glorious exit
of a religious virtue, but a death of desperation. Such an
one may be slain, but he cannot be crowned — Occidi talis
potest, coronari non potest." Cyprian often Tepeats this
assertion in other places of his writings, (which for brevity's
sake I omit,) and particularly applies it to the schism of the
Novatians, who broke the unity of the Church by setting
up Novatian their leader, as anti-bishop against Cornelius,
the lawful bishop of Rome ; whom being once regularly
chosen and invested in his office, no other could intrude
himself into the same place without dividing the unity of the
Church. Which was not the singular opinion of St.
Cyprian, but the voice of the whole Catholic Church,
as I have had occasion to demonstrate more fully
in another discourse,1 to which I refer the reader for
greater satisfaction. Neither was it any private opinion
of Cyprian, that a schismatic, continuing a schismatic
without repentance, could not be a martyr ; but herein
he is followed by the greatest lights of the Church, St.
Chrysostom,2 St. Austin,3 Fulgentius,* and others, who
cite this saying of his with approbation, which shews,
' Scholast. Hist, of Lay-Baptism, part ii. chap. ii. sect. 4.
" Chrys. Horn. xi. in Ephes. s Aug. Ep. 61. et 204. It. de
Bapt. lib. iv. cap. 17. Cont. Literas Petiliani. lib. ii. chap. 23. De
Gestis cum emerito. p. 249. * Fulgent, de Fide ad Petrum.
chap. iii. and xxxix.

CHAP. I. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 31
what weight they laid upon this sort of unity of submission
and obedience to every lawful bishop in the regular manage
ment of the affairs of his own Chruch.
But we must note, that this obedience was only due to
bishops, when they could make out a just title to it by the
standing rules of the Catholic Church. For first, if any
man came into his office by a simoniacal ordination, his
ordination by the canons was declared null and void:1 and
then no obedience was due to him, nor any communion to
be held with him, as a bishop of the Church. Secondly, if
a man intruded himself into a full see, where another bishop
was regularly ordained before him ; it was so far from being
a duty to pay obedience to him, that it was the very crime
of schism, we have now been speaking of in the Novatians
of old, to separate from the true bishop by joining with an
invader, set up against him. Thirdly, if a bishop fell into
manifest heresy or idolatry, the people were not only at
liberty, but obliged in point of duty, tc separate from his
communion as an intolerable prevaricator and transgressor.
Thus Cyprian2 tells the people of Leon and Astorga, in
Spain, with relation to Martialis and Bisilides, two bishops
who fell intoidolatry, that it was their duty, in obedience to
the divine commands, to separate themselves from such
apostatising bishops, and not join in their sacrilegious sacri
fices ; forasmuch as it was chiefly in their power either to
chuse worthy bishops, or refuse the unworthy. And the
same obligation lay upon them to separate from the com
munion of an heretical bishop, as is evident from the whole
practice of the Church. Fourthly, if any bishops were
legally deposed for any other misdemeanors, it was equally
the people's duty to give vigour and effect to the censures
of the Church by deserting their communion, and adhering
to such as were by just authority substituted in their room.

1 Vid. Can. Apost. xxix. et Con. Calced. can. ii.
* Cypr. Ep. lxviii. al. lxvii. p. 171. Plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini-
cis, et Deum metuens, a peccatore praeposito separare se debet, nee se ad
sacrilegi sacerdotis sacrificia miscere ; quando ipsa maxime habeat potesta.
tern vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, velindignos recusandi.

23 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Fifthly, it sometimes happened that the dispute of right be
tween two contending bishops was so nice, and doubtful,
and hard to be determined, that good and wise men might
join with either, till the matter of dispute was fully ended
by a competent authority, from which there lay no further
appeal. This was like the case of a lite pendente, where
each party might be presumed to have a right, till the cause
was fully "heard and adjusted: and in such a case it would
be hard to condemn innocent men, who joined with either
side, till some better light and direction could be afforded
them, which might give a final determination of the question
in debate, and settle more perfectly the rule of communion.
This was the case between Flavian and Evagrius, bishops
of Antioch: Flavian was generally received in the Eastern
Churches, but Evagrius had the countenance of the bishops
of Rome, and the Western Churches ; and during this con
tention, it was no great crime in men of honest minds to
join with either party, since the matter was so hard to be
determined by the greatest authority in the Church. Sixth
ly, sometimes a bishop, who migbt be presumed to have a
right in a Church, was willing to resign to his opposite, to
prevent a schism, and preserve the peace of the Church:
and in that case there could be no harm in submitting to the
opposite, because it was done by consent and cession of the
true bishop, and was confirmed by the approbation of the
Church. Seventhly, sometimes a bishop was willing to
resign for the sake of peace, but a superior power would
not permit him so to do : thus Flavian in the forenientioned
dispute with Evagrius, being summoned by the Emperor
Theodosius to have his cause heard and decided at Rome,
generously told the Emperor, " that if his faith was ac
cused as erroneous, or his life as immoral and unqualifying1
him for a bishopric, he would freely let his accusers be his
judges, and stand to their determination, whatever it were:
but if the dispute be only about the throne and govern
ment of the Church," said he, " I shall not stay for judg
ment, nor contend with any that has a mind to that, but
freely recede, and abdicate the throne of my own accord :
and you, great sir, may commit the see of Antioch to whom

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 33
you please." The historian says,1 the Emperor was so
much affected with this generous answer, that, instead of
sending him to Rome for judgment, he sent him back to
take care of his Church, and would never after hearken
to any solicitations that were made to expel him. Now in
this case it were unreasonable to think, that the people, which
followed Flavian, among whom was St. Chrysostom, were
in any fault, though the judgment of the Western bishops
was against him- Lastly, sometimes two bishops were al
lowed to sit jointly in the same see, as some suppose Peter
arid Paul to have been at Rome, the one the bishop of the
Jews, and the other of the Gentiles ; or when one was to
be Coadjutor to the other ; or when it was to cure an in
veterate schism, as it was in the proposal made by the
Catholic bishops to the Donatists in the Collation of Car
thage ; of all which cases the reader may find an exact
acdount given in a former part of this work.8 Now in such
cases obedience might be paid to either bishop without
schism, because there was no opposition between them i and,
though it was not according to the common rule of the
Church, to have two bishops ordinarily sitting together in
one see at the same time, yet for extraordinary reasons this
was sometimes allowed in special cases ; then there was no
schism or other evil in it, no breach of unity or encroach
ment upon any man's right, because it _was done for ex
pedience and benefit of the community, by common consent
of all parties, and the general approbation of the Church.
I have interposed these cautions, that it might be more
particularly understood, wherein the due submission to
every bishop in his own Church consisted, and under what
limitations obedience was required to a single bishop,
regularly appointed, to preserve the unity of the Church.
Sect. 7. — Fourthly, the Unity of Submission to the Discipline of the
Church.
4. To preserve the unity of the Church in its well-being,

1 Theodor. lib. v. cap. 23. , * Book ii. chap. xiii.
VOL. VI. > D

34 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
it was required that every member of a Church should sub
mit to the ordinary rules of discipline appointed for the
punishment of delinquents ; and neither despise the lawtul
censures of his own Church; nor seek clandestinely to be
restored to communion in any other Church, without giving
satisfaction to his own Church, whereof he was a member;
nor betaking himself to the conventicles of heretics Qr
schismatics, to be received by them as a communicant, when
he was cast out of his own Church as a criminal. For all
these were direct violations of the unity of discipline, which
ought to be preserved entire in every Church. The effect
of a legal excommunication and the power of the keys was
always reputed such, as that if a man was justly cast out of
the communion of his own Church fbr his offences, he was
supposed to be excluded from all title to. the kingdom of
heaven, during his continuance in that state, by virtue of
our Saviour's authority delegated to the Church in those
words, " Whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained,
and, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound
in heaven." And therefore, unless men submitted to the
ordinary way of restoring >offenders, and sought to bereconr
ciled. to the peace of the Church by the proper methods of
public confession and repentance, and intercession for par
don and absolution, they were treated as despisers of the
Church's discipline ; and if they died in that state, without
being first reconciled, and received into communion again,
they were looked- upon as persons in a deplorable condition,
as dying in a state of sin and rebellion against God, and
out of the unitj- of the Church. For which reason no so
lemnity was ever used at their funeral, as was usual for
those who died in the peace of the Church ; nor were their
oblations received, or any offerings or commemorations
made for them, as for others, in the usual service of the
Church. Only in one ease a little favour was shewed to
such as died in the bonds of excommunication, unrelaxed
by any formal absolution : which was, when such penitents
as obediently submitted te the Church's discipline, and gave
evident tokens of their sincere repentance, happened to die
suddenly, when they were desirous of reconciliation and
absolution, but by unavoidable necessity could not have it.

CHAP. l.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 35
In this case the canons ordered, that their oblations should
be received, as a testimony of their Submission, and being
united in heart and mind to the Church, though they could
not have the formality of an external absolution. In the
fourth Council of Carthage-there is p canon to this purpose ;
such penitents as are intent and diligent in observing the
rules of penance,1 if they chance to die in a journey, or
at sea, where they can have' no help or remedy, shall not
withstanding have their memory commended both iri the
prayers and oblations of the Church, The second Council
of Vaison is a little more particular in deplaring,2 how such
penitents shall be admitted to all the privileges of Church
communion after death : if any of those, who are under
penance, and live in the course of a good life with satis
factory compunction, happen to die suddenly and unex
pectedly either in the country of in a journey, their oblations
shall be received, and their funeral obsequies and memorials
shall be celebrated in the usual manner and affection of the
Church: because it were unjust, that their commemorations
should be excluded from the salutary mysteries, who, whilst
they were labouring earnestly with a faithful affection after
those holy mysteries, were intercepted by sudden death
from the viaticum of the sacraments, to whom the priest
perhaps would have thought fit to have granted the most
absolute reconciliation. There are a great many canons in
the second Council of Aries,3 and the second of Orleance,
and the second of Toledo, and the Council of Epohe, to the
same purpose. By all which we may judge, that though
the Church was severe against impenitent apostates and
contemners of her discipline, yet she showed great favour
and tenderness toward such as really honoured her disci
pline, and gave evident tokens of repentance : such men
were not deemed to depart out of the unity and communion
of the Church, though they happened to die without the for-

1 Con. Carthag. iv. can. lxxix. Poenitentes, qui attente leges pccnitentiae
exequuntur, si casu in itinere vel in mari mortui fuerint, ubi eis subveniri
non possit, raemoria eorum et orationibus et oblationibus commendetur.
s Con. Valense ii. can. 2.. 8 Con. Arelat. ii. can. 12. Con.
Aurelian. ii. can. 14. Con. Tolet. iii. can. 12. Con. Epaunense. can. xxxvi,
D 2'

36 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
mality of an external absolution ; being internally reconciled
both to God and the Church, by the testimonies of repen
tance, in such cases of extremity, where not their own will,
but the necessity of their circumstances precluded them
from a more formal reconciliation.
Sect. 8.— How different Churches maintained Communion with one
another. 1st. in Faith.
And thus far we have considered the unity of every
Church with relation to its own members: we are next to
examine, what communion different Churches held with one
another, that we may discover the harmonious unity of the
Catholic Church. And here first of all we are to observe,'
that as there was one common faith, consisting of certain
fundamental articles, essential to the very being of a par
ticular Church and its unity , and the being of a Christian ;
so this same faith was necessary to unite the different parts
of the Catholic Church, and make them one body of Chris
tians. So that if any Church deserted or destroyed this
faith in whole or in part, they were looked upon as rebels
and traitors against Christ, and enemies to the common
faith, arid treated as a conventicle of heretics, and not of
Christians. Upon this account every bishop not only made
a declaration of his faith at his ordination, before the pro
vincial synod that ordained him, but also sent his circular
or encyclical letters, as they were called, to foreign .
Churches, to signify that he was in communion with them.
And this was so necessary a thing in a bishop newly or
dained, that Liberatus tells us,1 the omission of it was inter
preted a sort of refusal to hold communion with the rest of
the world, and a virtual charge of heresy upon himself or
them. Sect. 9.— 2dly, In mutual Assistance of each other for Defence of the
common Faith.
To maintain this unity of faith entire, every Church
was ready to give each other their mutual assistance, to
1 Liberat. Breviar. cap. xvii.

CHAP. I. ] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 37
oppose all fundamental errors, and beat down heresy at its
first appearance among them. The whole world in this
respect was but one common diocese, the episcopate was
an universal thing, and every bishop had his share in it in
such a manner, as to have an equal concern in the whole ;
as T have more fully shewn in another place,1 where I ob
served, that in things not appertaining to the faith, bishops
were riot to meddle with other men's dioceses, but only to
mind the business of their own : but when the faith or wel
fare of the Church lay at stake, and religion was manifestly
invaded ; then, by this rule of there being but one episco
pacy, every other bishopric was as much their diocese as
their own ; and no human laws or canons could tie up. their
hands from performing such acts of the episcopal office in
any part of the world, as they thought necessary for the pre
servation of faith and religion. This was the ground of
their meeting in synods, provincial, national, and general,
and sending their joint opinions and advice from one Church
to another. The greatest part of Church history' is made
up of such acts as these, so that it were next to impertinent
to refer to any particulars. I only observe one thing fur
ther upon this head, that the intermeddling with other
men's concerns, which would have been accounted a real
breach of unity in many other eases, was in this case
thought so necessary, that there was no certain way to pre
serve the unity of the Catholic Church and faith without it.
And as an instance of this, I have noted in the fore-cited
book, that though it was against the ordinary rule of the
Church for any bishop to ordain in another man's diocese ;
yet in ease a bishop turned heretic, and persecuted the or
thodox, and would ordain none but heretical men to esta
blish heresy in his diocese; in that case any orthodox
bishop was not only authorised, but obliged, as opportunity
served, and the needs of the Church required, to ordain
Catholic teachers in such a diocese, to oppose the malignant
designs of the enemy, and stop the growth of heresy, which
might otherwise take deep root, and spread and over-run

Book ii. chap. v. sect. 2.

38 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
the Church. Thus Athanasius and the famous Eusebius of
Samosata went about the world in the prevalency of the
Arian heresy, ordaining in every Church, where they came,
Such clergy as were necessary to support the orthodox
cause in such a time of distress and desolation : and this
was so far from being reckoned a breach of the Church's uni
ty, though against the letter of a canon in "ordinary cases,
that it was necessary to be done, in such a state of affairs,
to maintain the unity of the Catholic faith, which every
bishop was obliged to defend, not only in his own diocese,
but in all parts of the world, by virtue of that rule, which
obliges bishops in weighty affairs to take care of the Catho
lic Church, and requires all Churches in time of danger to
give mutual aid and assistance to one another.
Sect. 10. — 8dly, In joining in Communion with each other in all holy
Offices, as Occasion required.
This unity of the Catholic Church was further maintained
by the Teadiness of each Church, and every member of it,
to join in communion with all other Churches in the per
formance of divine worship, and all holy offices, as their oc
casions required. To this purpose two things were neces
sary ; first, that every Church should keep her Liturgy free
from all superstitious and idolatrous worship, and not render
her assemblies for holy duties inaccessible by intrenching
upon any divine rule, or making any unlawful conditions of
communion. And how careful the ancient Church was in
this point, may be seen by any one that will peruse the ac
count I have lately given of the Liturgy of the ancient
Churches in all the several parts of it ; where none of those
superstitious and idolatrous practices appear, that have so
much divided the Church in later ages, since the exorbitant
power of the Romish Church imposed so much upon the cre
dulity of men in points of faith, and loaded their conscien
ces so heavily in matters of unwarrantable practice. Second
ly, it was necessary that every Christian, when he came to a
foreign Church, should readily comply with the innocent
usages and customs of that Church, where he happened to
be, though ihey might chance in some circumstances to dif-

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 39
fer from his own. This was a necessary rule of peace, to
preserve the unity of communion and worship throughout
the whole Catholic Church. For it was impossible that
every Church should have the same rites and ceremonies,
the same customs and usages in all respects, or even the
same method and manner of worship exactly agreeing
in all -punctilios with one another, unless there had been a
general liturgy for the whole Church expressly enjoined by
divine appointment. The unity of the Catholic Church did
not require this, as we shall see more plainly by and by,
and therefore no one ever insisted upon this as any neces
sary part of its unity : it was enough that all Churches
agreed in the substance of divine worship ; and for circum
stantials, such as rites and ceremonies, method and order,
and the like, every Church had liberty to judge and choose
for herself by the rules of expediency and convenience :
and then, as it was the duty of every member of any parti
cular Church to comply with the innocent customs of his
own Church, in order to hold free communion with her ;
so it was the duty of every Christian to comply with the diffe
rent customs of all other Churches, wherever he happened to
travel, in order to hold communion with the Catholic Church
in all places without exception. This rule is often inculca
ted by St. Austin, as the great rule of peace and unity with
regard to all Churches : and he tells us, he received it as
an oracle from the wise and moderate discourses of St.
Ambrose, whom he consulted upon the occasion of a scruple,
which had possessed the heart of his mother Monicha, and
for some time greatly perplexed her. She having lived a
long time at Rome, was used to fast on Saturday, or the
Sabbath, according to the custom of the Church of Rome :
but when she came to Milan, she found the contrary custom
prevailing, which was to keep Saturday a festival: and
being much disturbed about this, her son, though he had not
mueh concern about such matters at that time, for her ease
and satisfaction, consulted St. Ambrose upon the point, to
take his advice and direction how to govern herself in this
case, so as to be inoffensive in her practice. To whom
St. Ambrose answered, that he could give no better advice

40 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
in the case, than to do as he himself was wont to do : " fore
said he,1 " when I am here, I do not fast on the Sabbath ;
when I am at Rome, I fast on the. Sabbath : and so you, ,whatr
ever Church you come to, observe the custom of that
Church, if you would neither take offence at them, nor give
offence to them." St. Austin says,2 this answer satisfied his
mother, and he always looked upon it as an oracle sent
from heaven. He adds moreover, that he had often expe
rienced with grief and sorrow the disturbance of weak
minds, occasioned either by the contentious obstinacy of
certain brethren, or by their own superstitious fears, who in
matters of this nature, wdiich can neither be certainly de
termined by the authority of holy Scripture, nor by the tra
dition of the universal Church, nor by any advantage in the
correction of life, raise such litigious questions, as to think
nothing right but what themselves do; only because they
were used to do so in their own country, or because a little
shallow reason tells them it ought to be so, or because they
have perhaps seen some such thing in their travels, which
they reckon the more learned, the more remote it is from
their own country. Thus he handsomely and elegantly re
flects upon the superstitious folly, and contentious, obsti
nacy of such as disturbed the Church's peace for such
things as every Chtirch had liberty to use, and every good
Christian was obliged to comply with. For, as he says, in
the same place, all such customs as varied in the practice 6f
different Churches, as, that some fasted on the Saturday,

1 Aug. Ep. lxxxvi. Ad Casulan. Quando hie sum, non jejuno Sabbato ;
quando Roma sum, jejuno Sabbato: et ad quamcunque ecclesiam veneritis,
ejus morem servate, si pati scandalum non vultis, aut facere.
2 Aug. Ep. 118. ad Januar. Hoc cum matri renunciassem, libenter amplexa
est. Ego verd de hac sententia etiam atque etiam cogitans, ita semper
habui, tanquam eam ccelesti oraculo susceperim. Sensi enim s»pe dolens
et gemens multas inflrmorum perturbationes fieri, per quorundam fratrum
contentiosam obstinationem, vel superstitiosam timiditatem, qui in rebus hu-
jusmodi, quffi neque Scripturee sanctae auctoritate, neque universalis eccle-
tis traditione, neque vita corrigenda? utilitate ad certuin possunt terminum
pervenire, tantum quia subest qualiscunque ratiocinatio cogitantis, aut quia
in sud patria sic ipse consuevit, aut quia ibi vidit, ubi peregrinationem suam,
quo remotioreni a suis, co doctiorein factain putat, tam litigiosas excitant
quaestiones, ut nisi quod ipsi faciunt, nihil rectum existiincnt.

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 41
and others did not ; some received the euchaiist every day,
others on the Sabbath and Lord's day, and others on the
Lord's day only ; and whatever else there was of this kind
they were all things of free observation:1 and in such things
there could be no better rule for a grave and prudent
Christian to walk by, than to do as the Church did, wherever
he happened to come. For whatever was enjoined, that
was neither against faith nor good manners, was to be held
indifferent, and to be observed according to the custom, and
for the convenience of the sbcietv among whom we live.
This he repeats over and over again,3 as the most safe rule
of practice in all such things, wherein the custom of
Churches varied, that wherever we see any things appointed
or know them to be appointed, that are neither against faith,
nor good manners, and have any tendency to edification
and to stir men up to a good life, we should not only abstain
from finding fault with them, but follow them both by our
commendation and imitation. By this rule all wise and
peaceable men always governed their practice in holding
communion with other Churches: though they did not al
together like their customs, they did not break communion
with them upon that account. Thus Irenseus observes to3
Pope Victor, when he was rashly going to excommunicate
the Asiatic Churches for their different way of observing
Easter, that his predecessor Anicetus was far from this un
charitable temper. For when Polycarp came to Rome,
though they could not come to a perfect agreement in this
point, to have all the Churches observe Easter on the same

1 Aug. Ep. 118. Totum hoc genus rerum liberas habet observationes :
nee disciplina ulla est in his melior, gravi prudentique Christiano, quam ut
eo modo agat, quo agere viderit ecclesiam ad quamcunque forte devenerit.
Quod enim neque contra fidem, neque contra bouos mores injungituT, indiffe-
renter est habendum, et pro eorum inter quos vivitur societate servandum est.
2 Aug. Ep- cxix. ad Januarium. eap. xviii. De iis, qua? varie per diversa
loca observantur, una in his saluberrima regula retinenda est, ut qua? non
sunt contra fidem, neque contra bonos mores, et habent aliquid ad exhorta-
tionem vita? melioris, ubicunque institui videmus, vel instituta cognoscimus,
non solum non improbemus, sed etiam laudando et imitando sectemur, si ali-
quoruin infirmitas non ita impedit, ut majus detrimentum sit.
3 Ap. Euseb. lib. v. cap. 24,

42 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI-
day ; yet this difference made no contention between them.
For they gave each other the kiss of peace, and communi
cated together; Anicetus paying Polycarp the customary
civility and respect, to let him consecrate the eucharist in
his Church, lrenaeus observes further, that though there
were many disputes then on foot concerning the time, and
length, and manner of observing the Ante-paschal or Lent
fast; yet all Churches agreed to live in peace and union with
one another : and the difference of their fasts served only to
commend the unity of their faith. And because it was then
a customary thing for Churches of different countries to
send the eucharist mutually to each other, to testify that
they were in communion with one another ; he notes it like
wise as a peculiar instance of the Catholic tempers of the
bishops of Rome, Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus,
Xystus and Soter, who were Victor's predecessors in that
Church, that though they differed from the Asiatic Churches
about Easter, yet they lived in peace with them ; not only
receiving the members of those Churches into communion,
when they came to Rome, but also sending the eucharist
from Rome to those Churches. Which being so common a
way of testifying their communion with distant Churches in
those days, it was a veTy just complaint, which Chrysostom
made against Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and his ac
complices, that, when they came to Constantinople, they
came not to church, according to custom and ancient law;
they joined not themselves to him, nor communicated with
him in the word or prayer,' or the communion of the eucha
rist ; but as soon as they landed, passing by the church,
they took their lodging in an inn, when the bishop's house
was ready prepared to entertain them. This he complains
of, as a singular instance of their enmity, faction, and uncha
ritable spirit, in refusing to communicate with him, before
any formal accusation had been brought against him, much
less any legal sentence of condemnation pronounced upon
him. By this account of things it is easy to judge, what
stress the Ancients laid upon the law of communion, obli-

1 Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent, torn. iv. p, 677.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 43
ging every Church to communicate with her sister Churches
over all the worid in all holy offices, in order to preserve the
communion of worship one entire thing throughout the
whole Catholic Church, without any notorious division or
distraction. Sect. 11.— 4thly. In mutual Consent to ratify all legal Acts of Discipline,
regularly exercised in any Church whatsoever.
The communion of the whole Catholic Church was fur
ther declared by the obligation of such laws, as laid a ne
cessary injunction upon all Churches to ratify all such legal
acts of discipline, as were regularly exercised in any Church
whatsoever. Thus if any person was duly baptised, and
thereby admitted to be a member of any particular Church,
that qualification gave him a right to communicate in any
part of the Catholic Church, travelling with commendatory
letters from the bishop of his own Church, to signify that
he was in perfect and full communion with her, and not
cast out for any offence against the rules of her commu
nion. This is what Optatus means, when he says,1 that the
whole world was united together irj one common society, or
society of communion, by the mutual commerce of those
canonical or communicatory letters, which they called
Formates, because these testifying that he was in the com
munion of his own Church, by the known laws and rules of
discipline, gave him a title to communicate in any Church
whatsoever, only observing the rites and customs of that
Chureh whither his occasions happened to call him. So
again, if a man was legally excommunicated for his crimes
by his own Church, no Church would receive him to com
munion, till he had given proper satisfaction to his own
Church, which had bound him by her censures. Such a
perfect. good understanding and harmony was there then
among all the parts of the whole Catholic Church, in con
firming each others discipline, and mutually strengthening
their authority against all enemies of faith and virtue, whe-

1 Optat. lib. ii. p. 48. Totus orbis commercio formatarum in una com-
munionis societate concordat.

44 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
ther they were such as tried by open violence and terror,
or by secret arts and clandestine practices to get admission,
in opposition to the Church, whose censures they lay under.
No Church would admit them without communicatory let
ters: if they were rebels to their own Church, they were ac
counted rebels to the whole. Thus Epiphanius tells us,1
when Marcion the. heretic was excommunicated by his own
father, and desired to be received into communion at Rome,
they answered him, that they could not do it, without the
permission of his father. For there was but one faith, and
one rule of concord; and they could not do any thing in
opposition to their good fellow-servant, and his father.
This repulse was highly resented by MaTcion, and it put
him upon those wicked designs of inventing a new heresy
to disturb the Church : for he told them directly in revenge,
that he would divide their Church, and bring an eternal
schism into it. Which, as Epiphanius rightly observes, was
not so much to divide the Church, as to divide himself
from it. There are a great many other instances of the
Church's steadiness and resolution in thus proceeding
against delinquents, to maintain the unity of discipline en
tire in all parts of the ecclesiastical body, and abundance of
canons to this purpose ; which, because I shall have occa
sion to speak more of hereafter,2 I willingly omit them in
this place, and go on to observe another instance of the
Church's unity in point of practice : which was,

Sect. 12.— Sthly. In receiving unanimously the Customs of the Univer
sal Church, and submitting to the Decrees of General Councils.
That all Churches generally agreed in receiving such cus
toms as were handed down by general consent from apos
tolical tradition, or otherwise settled and determined by the
decrees of general councils. For these two ways many
customs became in a manner universal, and almost of ne
cessary observance in the Church over all the world : and
then for any private man or Church to dispute against

Epiphan. Har. 42. Marcion. n. i. - Chap. ii. sect. 10.

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 45
them, was to give scandal to the rest of the world, and bring
disturbance into the Church by an unnecessary and unrea
sonable opposition to things innocent in themselves, and
settled by general consent and approbation. St. Austin
takes notice of this double source and original of general
customs in the Church, for which though there be no ex
press command in Scripture, yet a great deference ought
to be paid to the general sentiments and authority, and
practice and observation of the whole Church. Those
things, says he, which we keep,1 not from Scripture, but
from tradition, and which are observed over all the world,
are reasonably supposed to have come down to us recom
mended and appointed either by the Apostles themselves, or
by some plenary councils, whose authority is of great use
in the Church ; such as the celebrating the anniversary
memorial of our Saviour's passion, and resurrection, and
ascension, and the descent of the Holy Ghost from heaven,
and whatever else of the like nature is observed by, the
universal Church in all parts, wherever it spreads itself all
the world over. Concerning which sort of things, he con
cludes,3 that for any man to dispute against them, was most
insolent madness, seeing they were authorised by the prac
tice of the universal Church. He particularly applies this
rule to the case of observing the Lord's day,3 not as a fast,
but as a festival : for since the whole Church observed it
as a festival, no one could turn that day into a fast, without
offending God, by giving scandal to the Church Universal :
there being both general custom and canon against it.* For

1 Aug. Ep. 118. ad. Januar. Ilia autem, qua? non scripta, sed tradita
custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur, dantur intelVigi
velab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis Conciliis, quorum in ecclesia saluber-
rima authoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri : sicuti quod Domini
passio et resurrectio et ascensio in ccelum, et adveiitus de ccelo spiritQs
Sancti, anniversaria solennitate celebrantur, et si quid aliud tale occurrerit
quod servatur ab universS, quScunque se diffundit, ecclesiS.
a Ibid. Si quid horum tota per orbem frequentat ecclesia, quin ita facien
dum sit, disputare, insolentissima? insania? est. 8 Aug.
Ep. 86. ad Casulan. Quis non Deum offendet, si velit cum scandalo to
tius, qua? ubique dilatata est, ecclesia?, die dominico jejunare 1
* Vide Can. Apost. 64. Con. Gangren. can. 18. Con. Carthag. iv. can,
64. Con. Bracar. i. can. 4.

4G THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVL
the same reason it was esteemed a crime to pray kneeling
on that day, because the practice of the universal Church
was to pray standing,1 in memory of our Saviour's resur
rection ; and the Council of Nice thought it a thing worthy
of a decree to bring all men to an uniformity in that prac
tice. As she did also in the matter of observing the Easter
festival, making a rule that all Churches should celebrate it
on one and the same day, " because it was unlawful that in
a business of so great moment, and the religious observa
tion of such a festival, there should be any dissention," as
Constantine expresses it in his epistle,8 which he sent to all
the Churches in the world upon this occasion. So that
though several Churches had kept this festival on different
days before this decree was made, yet when it was once
past, there was no more liberty for dissension.
Sect. 13. — 6thly, In submitting to the Decrees of National Councils.
The like may be observed of the decrees of national
councils, when once the Roman Empire was divided into
several kingdoms. A great many things were at first al
lowed to every bishop in the management of his own dio
cese, which were afterwards restrained by the decrees of
national Councils. As to instance only in one particular;
every bishop anciently had liberty to frame his own liturgy
foT the use of his own Church : but in process of time,
when the world was divided into several kingdoms, rules
were made that all the Churches of such or such a king
dom should have one and the same liturgy. Thus when
Spain and Gallia Narbonensis became one distinct king
dom, a decree was made, that as there was but one faith, so
there should be but one liturgy or order of divine service
throughout the whole kingdom. The fourth Council of
Toledo, under the reign of king Sisenandus, made an ex
press canon to this purpose :s " After the confession of the

1 Vid. Tertul. de Coron. Mil. cap. iii. et Con. Nie. can. 20.
2 Ap. Euseb. de Vita Const, lib. iii. cap. 18. s Con. Tolet. iv.
can. ii. Post recta? fidei confessionem, qua? in sancta Dei ecclesia pra-
dicatur, placuit, omnes sacerdoles, qui catholica? fidei unitate complectimur

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 47
true faith, which is preached in the holy Church of God, it
seemed good, that all we bishops, who are joined together
in the unity of the Catholic faith, should henceforth use no
diversity or disagreement in the administration of the eccle
siastical mysteries ; lest every such diversity be interpreted
a schism among us by carnal men, and such as are unknown
to us, and the variety of customs in our Churches become
a scandal to many. Let one order therefore of prayers and
psalmody be observed by us throughout all Spain and
Gaul ; one manner of celebrating mass, or the communion
service ; and one manner of performing vespers, or evening
service : and let there henceforth be no diversity in our ec
clesiastical customs, seeing we all live in one faith and in
one kingdom." That canon also refers to more ancient
canons, requiring uniformity in divine worship throughout
provincial Churches. And it is most certain, that about this
time, that is, in the sixth and seventh centuries, and before,
decrees were made in several Councils, requiring the
Churches of each respective province to conform their usages
to the rites and forms of the metropolitical or principal
Church among them. As may be seen in the canons of the
Councils of Agde, Anno 506 j1 and Epone, and Girone,
Anno 517 ;9 and the Council of Vannes,3 and the first of
Braga,* Anno 465 and 563. For though by the most an
cient rules every bishop had liberty to prescribe what he
thought proper for his own Church, and no Church pre
tended to dictate magisterially in such things to any other ;
yet when Churches became subject to one political head,
and national Churches arose from that distinction ; then it
was thought convenient by a}l the bishops of such a nation

ut nihil ultra diversum aut dissonum in ecclesiasticis sacramentis agamus >
ne qua?libet nostra diversitas apud ignotos seu carnales schismatis errorem
videatur ostendere, et multis extet in scandalum varietas ecclesiarum.
Unus ergo ordo orandi atque psallendi, ti nobis per omnem Hispaniam
atque Galliciam (leg. Galliam) conservetur : unus modus in missarum solen-
nitatibus, unus in vespertiniis officiis ; nee diversa sit ultra in nobis eccle
siastica consuetudo, quia in una fide continemur et regno. Hoc enim et
antiqui canones decreverunt. &c. l Con. Agathen. can. xxx.
2 Con. Epaunense. can xxvii. Con. Gerund, can. i. s Con.
Veneticum. can. xv. * Con. Bracaren. i. can. 19, 20, 21. &c,

48 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
to unite more closely in rituals and circumstantials of divine
worship, as well as faith and substantials : and from that
time this also became a necessary part of the union of
national Churches; in which all the bishops voluntarily
combining, no one could depart from that unity, without in
curring the guilt of an unnecessary breach of that union,
which was so convenient for cementing the several mem
bers of a national Church into one communion.
Sect. 14.— No Necessity of a Visible Head to unite all the Parts of
the Catholic Church into one Communion.
Thus we have seen, wherein the unity of the Catholic
Church, considered in its utmost latitude, consisted. And
hence one might safely infer these two things negatively
without any further evidence : First, That there was no
necessity of a visible head, as now is pretended in the
Church of Rome, to unite all . the parts of the Catholic
Church into one communion. Nor, secondly, any necessity
that the whole Catholic Church should agree in all rites
and ceremonies, and customs in indifferent things, which
might be variolas in different Churches without any breach
of Catholic communion.
The former of these was sufficiently provided for by the
agreement of all Churches in the same faith, and the obli
gation that lay upon the whole college of bishops, as equal
sharers in one episcopacy, to give mutual assistance to each
other in all things that were necessary to defend the faith,
or preserve the unity of the Church entire in all respects,
when any assault was made upon it. It was by this means,
and not by any necessary recourse to any single, visible,
standing head, that anciently the unity of the Church was?
preserved. Recourse was sometimes had to the bishop of
Rome, as an eminent bishop, who made a considerable
figure in the great body of bishops, and one, who by his
station in the imperial city, might be able to succour those,
that were oppressed, in times of great difficulty and, dis
tress : but his judgment or opinion was deemed no infalli
ble rule, nor his decision such as was to conclude the rest
of the world, so as to tie them down, in no case without the

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 49
charge of schism to vary from him. For sometimes the
bishop of Rome fell into manifest heresy, as when Liberius
subscribed to the Arian blasphemy : in which case any other
bishop was not only at liberty to dissent from him, but was
obliged, by virtue of his share in the common episcopacy of
the Church, to oppose him, and, if occasion required, to pro
nounce anathema against him; as St. Hilary did against
Liberius,1 when he subscribed to the condemnation of Atha-
nasius, and the Arian Creed made at Sirmium. Sometimes
again the bishops of Rome took upon them to exercise a
jurisdiction over other Churches, in whose affairs by right
of canon, they had no power: as when Pope Victor set him
self to excommunicate the Asiatic Churches for their dif-,
ferent way of observing Easter, he was opposed not only by
the Asiatic bishops, but by Irenseus and the rest of the
world, as going beyond his bounds, and engaging himself
in a rash and schismatical undertaking. For he, who by
an undue stretch of power not belonging to him divides
others from his communion, is properly the schismatic, by
making an unnecessary division in the Church, and not they,
who by necessity are forced to divide from him. So again,
when Pope Zosimus and Celestine, took upon them to
receive appellants from the African Churches, and ab
solve those, whom they had condemned; St. Austin and
all the African' Churches sharply remonstrated against this
as an illegal practice, violating the laws of unity, and the
settled rules of ecclesiastical commerce, which required,
that no delinquent, excommunicated in one Church, should
be absolved in another, without giving satisfaction, to
his own Church, that censured him : and therefore
to put a stop to this practice, and check the exorbitant
power, which the Roman bishops assumed to themselves,
they first made a law in the Council of Milevis,3 that no
African clerk should appeal to any Church beyond sea,
under pain of being excluded from communion in all the

1 Hilar. Fragment, p. 134. Anathema tibi a me dictum, Liberi, et sociis
tuis. Iterum tibi anathema, et tertio, prcevaricator Liberi.
* Con. Milevitan. can.xxii.
VOL. VI. E

50 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
African Churches: and then afterward meeting in a general
synod1 they dispatched letters to the bishop of Rome, to
remind him how contrary this practice was to the canons of
Nice, which ordered, that all controversies should be ended
in the places, where they arose, before a council and the
metropolitan. And they withall tell him, it was unreason
able to think, that God should enable a single person to
examine the justice of a cause, and deny his grace to a
multitude of men assembled in council. This evidently
shews, that they did not imagine any single person to be
the centre of unity to the whole Church ; or that all Churches
were obliged to be in communion with the bishop of Rome,
whether he were catholic or heretic ; or that any Church,
without the limits of his metropolitical power, was bound
in any respect to submit to his jurisdiction : but it manifest
ly proves on the contrary, that there was no necessity
of a visible head, as is now pretended in the Church
of Rome, to unite all the parts of the Catholic Church
into one communion ; but that in matters of faith,
every bishop was as much a guardian of the whole Church
as the bishop of Rome ; and in matters of discipline, all
Churches were at liberty. to hear and determine their own
causes in a synod of bishops, without having recourse to
any foreign jurisdiction, as has been more fully demonstra
ted in other parts of this work,2 to which I refer the reader
for greater satisfaction.
Sect. 15.— Nor any Necessity, that the whole Church should agree in the
same Rites and Ceremonies, which were Things of anindifferentNature.
It is equally clear, that there was no necessity, in order
to maintain the unity of the Catholic Church, that all
Churches should agree in all the same rites and ceremonies ;
but every Church might enjoy her own usages and customs
having liberty to prescribe for herself in all things of an
indifferent nature, except where either an universal. tradition
or the decree of some general or national Council, as has

1 Cod. Can. Afric. a cap. 135. adjl38. * Book ii.chap.v.
and Book ix. chap. i. sect. 11.

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 51
been noted before, intervened to make it otherwise. To
this purpose is that famous saying of Irenaeus,1 upon occa
sion of the different customs of several Churches in obser
ving the Lent-fast : " we still retain peace one with another:
and-the different ways of keeping the fast, only the more
commends our agreement in the faith." St. Jerom likewise,
speaking of the different customs of Churches in relation to
the Saturday fast, and the reception of the eucharist every
day, lays down this general rule,3 that all ecclesiastical
traditions, which did no ways prejudice the faith, were to
be observed in such manner as we had received them from
our fore-fathers ; and the custom of one Church was not to
be subverted by the contrary custom of another ; but every
province might abound in their own sense, and esteem the
rules of their ancestors as laws of the Apostles. After the
same manner, St. Austin3 says, " that in all such things,
whereabout the Holy Scripture has given no positive deter
mination, the custom of the people of God, or the rules of
our fore-fathers, are to be taken for laws. For if we dispute
about such matters, and condemn the custom of one Church
by the custom of another, that will ;be an eternal occasion
of strife and contention ; which will always be diligent
enough to find out plausible reasonings, when there are no
certain arguments to shew the truth. Therefore great cau
tion ought to be used, that we draw not a cloud over charity
and eclipse its brightness in the tempest of contention."
He adds, a little after : " Such contention is commonly
endless, engendering strifes, and terminating no disputes.

1 Ap. Euseb. lib. V. cap. 24. XlavTsg tipnvtvojitv 7rpoc dXXryXec. ij »)
Smipiovla Trjg vn^tiag rfjv bjiovoiav ttjc Tn^tiag avv'vznai.
s Hieron. Ep. xxviii. ad Lucinium Bosticum. Ego illud te breviter admo-
nendum puto, traditiones ecclesiasticas (pra?sertim qua? fidei non officiant,)
ita observandas, rt a maj oribus tradita? sunt t nee aliorum consuctudinem
aliorum contrario more ' subverti  Sed unaqua?que provincia abundet in
suo sensu, et pra?cepta majoruin leges apostolicas arbitretur.
3 Aug. Ep. lxxxvi. ad Casulan. In his rebus, de quibus nihil certi statuit
Scriptura divina, mos populi Dei vel instituta majorum pro lege tenenda
sunt. De quibus si disputare voluerimus, et ex aliorum consuetudine alios
improbare, orietur interminata luctatio, qua? labore sermocinationis cum
certa documenta nulla veritatis insinuet; utique cavendumest, netempestate
contentionis serenitatem charitatis obnubilet.
E 2

52 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Let us therefore maintain one faith throughout the whole
Church,1 wherever it is spread, as intrinsical to the mem
bers of the body, although the unity of faith be kept with
some different observations, which in no ways hinder or
impair the truth of it. For all the beauty of the king's
daughter is within, and those observations which are diffe
rently celebrated, are understood only to be in her outward
clothing. Whence she is said to be clothed in golden
fringes, wrought about with divers colours. But let that
clothing be so distinguished by different observations, as
that she herself may not be destroyed by oppositions and
contentions about them.'' This was the ancient way of
preserving peace in the Catholic Church, to let different
Churches, which had no dependence in externals upon
one another, enjoy their own liberty to follow their own
customs without contradiction. For as Gregory2 the Great
said to Leander, a Spanish bishop, there is no harm done to
the Church catholic by different customs, so long as the
unity of the faith is preserved. And therefore, though the
Spanish Churches differed in some customs from the Roman
Church, yet he did not pretend to oblige them to leave
their own customs and usages, to follow the Roman. He
gave a like answer to Austin, the monk, archbishop of Can
terbury, when he asked him, what form of divine service
he should settle in Britain, the old Gallican, or the Roman?
And how it came to pass, that when there was but one faith
there were different customs in different Churches; the
Roman Church having one form of service, and the Galli
can Churches another % To this he replied,3 " Whatever

1 Aug. Ep. lxxxvi. ad Casulan. Interminabilis est ista contentio, gene.
rans lites, non Aniens qurestiones. Sit ergo una fides universa?, quae ubique
dilatatur, ecclesia?, tanquam intus in membris, etiam si ipsa unitas fidei
quibusdam diversis observationibuscelcbratur, quibus nullo modo quod in
tide verum est impeditur. Oinnis enim pulchiitudo filia? regis intriusecus;
ilia? autem observationes, qua? varie celebrantur, in ejus veste intelliguntur.
Unde ibi dicitur, In fimbriis aureis circumamicta varietate. Sed ea quoque
vestis ita diversis celebrationibus varietur, ut non adversis contentionibus
dissipetur. 2 Greg. Magn. Ep. xii. ad Leandrum. In
unS fide nihil officii sancta? ecclesia? consuetudo diversa.
3 Greg, respons. ad qua?st. Aug. ap. Bedam. lib. i. cap. 27. and, Gratian.'
dist. xii. cap. 10. Mihi placet, ut si vein Roniana, sive 'm Galliarum, seu in qua

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 53
you find either in the Roman or Gallican, or any other
Church, which may be more pleasing to Almighty God, 1
think it best, that you should carefully select it, and settle it
in the use of the English Church, newly converted to the
faith. For we are not to love things for the sake of tho
place, but places for the sake of the good things we find in
them. Therefore you may collect out of every Church what
ever things are pious religious and right; and putting them
together, instil them into the minds of the English, and
accustom them to the observation of them." And there is
no question but that Austin followed this direction in his
new plantation of the English Church.
Neither was this liberty granted to different Churches in
bare rituals, and things of an indifferent nature, but some
times in more weighty points, such as the receiving, or not
receiving those that were baptised by heretics and schis
matics without another baptism. This was a question long
debated between the African, and Roman, and other
Churches; yet without breach of communion,, especially on
their part, who followed the moderate counsels of Cyprian,
who still pleaded for the liberty and independency of different
Churches in this matter, leaving all Churches to act accord
ing to their own judgment, and keeping peace and unity
with those that differed from him, as has been more fully
shewn in a former book,1 where we discourse of the inde
pendency of bishops, especially in the African Churches.
The reader may find an account of some other questions
in the same place, as candidly and moderately debated
among them; as the question about clinic baptism, and the
ease of admitting adulterers to communion again,
in which the practice of the African bishops was often
different from one another ; but they neither censured

libet ecclesia aliquid invenisti, quod plus omnipotenti Deo placere possit'
sollicite eligas; et in Anglorum ecclesia, qua? adhuc ad fidem nova est, in-
stitutione pra?cipuS, quee de multis ecclesiis colligere potuisti, infuudas.
Non enim pro locis res, sed pro bonis rebus loca amanda sunt. Ex singulis
ergo quibusque ecclesiis, qua? pia, qua? religiosa, qua? recta sunt elige, e
ha?c quasi in fasciculum collecta, apud Anglorum mentes in consuetudinem
depone. 1 Book ii. chap. vi.

54 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
each other's practice, nor brake communion upon it. And
sometimes the same moderation wns observed in doctrinal
points of lesser moment. For as our learned and judicious
writers1 have observed out of St. Austin,2 besides the neces
sary articles of faith, there are other things about which
the most learned and exact defenders of the Catholic rule
do not agree, without dissolving the bond of faith. There
are some questions, in which without any detriment to the
faith,3 that makes us Christians, we may safely be igno
rant of the truth, or suspend our opinion, or conjecture
what is false by human suspicion and infirmity. As in the
question about paradise, what sort of place it is, and where
it was that God placed the first man when he had formed
him? Where now Enoch and Elias are, in Paradise* or
some other place 1 How many heavens there are, into the
third of which St. Paul says he was taken % With innumer
able questions of the like nature, pertaining either to the secret
work of God, or the hidden parts of Scripture, concern
ing which he concludes, that a man may be ignorant of them
without any prejudice to the Christian faith, or err about
them without any imputation of heresy. This consideration
made St. Austin profess in his modesty, that there were
more things in Scripture,* which he knew not, than what he
did know. And if men should fiercely dispute about such
things, and condemn one another for their ignorance or
error concerning them, there would be no end of schisms and
divisions in the Church. Therefore in such questions every
man was at liberty to abound in his own sense, only observ
ing this rule of peace, not to impose his own opinions ma
gisterially upon others, nor urge his own sentiments as ne-
1 Barrow, Of the Unity of the Church, p. 299. Potter, Answer to
Charity Mistaken, sect. iii. p. 88. " Aug. cont. Julian.
Pelag. Alia sunt de quibus inter Se aliquando doctissimi atque optimi regu
la? catholica? defensores, salvS fidei compage, non consonant.
8 Aug. de Peccat. Orig. cont. Pelag. et Celest. lib. ii. cap. 23. Sunt
qusestiones in quibus, salva fide qua. Christiani sumus, aut ignoratur quod
verum sit, et sententia definitive suspenditur; aut aliter quam est ; humana et
infirma suspicione conjicitur. Veluti cum qua?ritur, Qualis, aut ubi para-
disus sit 1 &c. Vid. Enchirid. cap. 59.
1 Aug. Ep. 119. ad Januar. cap. xx. Etiam in ipsis Sanctis Scripturis multo
ncsciaui plura quam sciam.

CHAP. I.j CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 55
cessary doctrines or articles of faith in such points, where
either the Scripture was silent, or left every man the liberty
of opining,
Sect. 16. — What Allowance was made for Men, who out of simple Ig
norance broke Communion with one another.
Nay, in some cases a little allowance was made for men
of honest minds, who broke communion with one another.
For'sometimes it happened, that good Catholics were divi
ded among themselves out of ignorance, and broke com
munion with one another for mere words, not understanding
each other's sentiments. In which case all wise and mode
rate men hada just compassion for each party, and laboured
to compose and unite them, without severely condemning
either. Nazianzen tells us, there was a time1 when the
ends of the earth were well nigh divided by a few syl
lables. It was in a controversy about the use of the
words Tpia irpoo-w7ra, and TpeTe 'Yirozcio-Ets, in the doctrine
of the Trinity. Eaeh party was orthodox, and meant the
same thing under different words ; but not understanding
one another's sense, they mutually charged each
other with heresy. They who were for calling the three
divine persons three Hypostases, charged their adversaries
as Sabellians ; and they on the contrary returned the charge
of Arianism upon them, as thinking they had taken three
Hypostases in the Arian sense, for three essences or sub
stances of a different nature. But the great and good Atha-
nasius, in his admirable prudence and candour, seeing into
the false foundation of these disputes, quickly put an end to
them, by bringing them to a right understanding of each
other's sense, and allowing them to use tlieir own terms
without any difference in opinion. And this, says our author,
was a more beneficial act of charity to the Church, than all
his other daily labours and discourses : it was more honou
rable than all his watchings aad humicubations, and not
inferior to his flights and exiles. And therefore he tells his
readers, in ushering in the discourse, " That he could not
—  ^,  - — - — .  >— — •
*> -r
1 Naz. Orat. xxi. da land. AHianas. torn. i. p. 393.

56 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
omit the relation without injuring them, especially at
a time when contentions and divisions were in the Church ;
for this action of his would be an instruction to
them, that were then alive, and of great advantage,
if they would propound it to their own imitation, since
men were prone to divide not only from the impious,
but from the orthodox and pious, and that not only about
little and contemptible opinions, which ought to make no
difference, but even about words that tended to the same
sense, as was evident in the case before them." Such was
the candour and prudence of wise and good men in labouring
to compose the unnecessary and verbal disputes of the
orthodox, when they unfortunately happened to clash and
quarrel without grounds one with another.
And they had some regard likewise to men of honest
riiinds, who, through mere ignorance or infirmity, were en
gaged in greater errors. For they made a great distinction
between Heresiarchs and their followers; between the
guides and the people ; and between such as were born and
bred in the Church, and afterward apostatised into heresy,
and those that received their errors from the tradition and
seduction of their parents. St. Austin1 speaking of this lat
ter sort, says, " that they, who defend not a false and per
verse opinion with any pertinacious animosity, especially if
they did not by any audacious presumption of their own first
invent it, but received it from the seduction of their erring
parents, and were careful in their inquiries after truth,-
being ready to embrace, it when they found it ; that they
were by no means to be reckoned among heretics." That
is, they had not the formality of heresy, which is pride and
obstinacy in error ; and therefore a more favourable opinion
might be conceived of them above others, who first founded
heresies, or embraced them afterwards out of some vicious

1 Aug. Ep. 162. ad Episc. Donat. p. 277. Qui sententiam suam, quamvis
falsam atque perversam, nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, pra?sertim
quam non audacia pra?sumptionis sua? pepererunt, sed a seductis atque in
erroremlapsis parentibus acceperunt, qua?runt autem causa solicitudine veri.
tatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter ha?reticos depu-
tandi.

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 57
corruption of mind, having a greater regard to their own
lusts, and pleasures of unrighteousness, than any sincere love
for truth. Though such weak and injudicious persons could
not be wholly excused from error, or schism, or sin, yet in
comparison of others their case was thought capable of
some proper allowances: and therefore they were neither
so severely punished in the Church here, nor reputed so
great objects of God's displeasure hereafter. For as
Salvian1 words it, in the case of some who embraced the
Arian heresy, " they erred indeed, but they erred with a
good mind ; not out of any hatred to God, but with affection
to him, thinking thereby to honour and love the Lord.
Although they had not the true faith, yet they imagined this
their opinion to be perfect charity towards God. And how
they shall be punished for this error of their false opinion in
the day of judgment, no one knows but the Judge alone."
Sect. 17. — Of different Degrees of Unity ; and that no one was esteemed to
be in the perfect Unity of the Church, who was not in full Communion
with her.
This occasioned a little distinction sometimes to be made
betwen Heresiarchs, or the first authors of heresy, and those
that were ignorantly drawn into error by their seducement
and delusions, as we shall see more in speaking of the disci
pline and censures of the Church. In the mean time, I ob
serve, that because the Church could not ordinarily judge
of men's hearts, nor always know the means and motives that
engaged them in error or schism, she was forced to proceed
commonly by another rule, and judge of their unity with her
by their external communion and professions. And because
there were several sorts and degrees of unity, as we have
seen before, so that a man might be in the communion of
the Church in one respect, and out of it in another ; therefore
the Church went by this rule, to judge none to be in her

1 Salvian. de Gubernat. Dei. lib. v. p. 154. Errant ergo, sed bono animo
errant; non odio, sed affectu Dei, honorare se Dominum, atque amare cre
dentes. • Quamvis non habeant rectam fidem, illi tamen hoc perfectam Dei
sstimant charitatem. Qualiter pro hoc ipso falsa? opinionis enore in die
judicii puniendi sunt, nullus potest scire nisi judex.

58 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
perfect unity, but such as were in full communion with her
Upon which account, though heretics and schismatics and
excommunicate persons and profane men were in some
sense of the Church, as having received baptism, which they
always retained, and as making profession of some part of
the Christian faith ; yet because, in other respects they were
broken off from her, they were not esteemed sound and per
fect members of the body, but looked upon as withered and
decayed branches, for want of such unity in other respects,
as is necessarily required to denominate a man a real and
complete Christian, which is a title allowed to none but
such as are in full communion with the Church o Christ.
This distinction between total and partial unity, and total
and partial schism and separation, is of great use to make a
man understand all those sayings of the Ancients, which
speak of heretics and schismatics and excommunicate per
sons and profligate sinners, as being in some measure in and
of the Church, at the same time that they were reputed
really and truly separated from her. Thus Optatus tells the
Donatists.1 " that they were divided from the Church in
part, not in every respect: for that was the nature of a
schism, to be divided in part, not totally cut asunder, And
that for very good reason, because both we and you have the
same ecclesiastical conversation ; though the minds of men
be at variance, the sacraments do not vary. We have all the
same faith, we are all signed with the same seal : we are no
otherwise baptised than you are, nor otherwise ordained than
you are. We all read the same divine Testament, we all
pray to the same God. The Lord's prayer is the same with
us, as it is with you : but there being a rent made, as was said

Optat. lib. iii. p. 72. In parte vestis adhuc unum sumus, sed in diversa
pendemus. Quod enim scissum est, ex parte divisum est, non ex toto con-
cisum. Et merito, quia, nobis et vobis una est, ecclesiastica conversatio :
et si hominum litigant mentes, non litigant sacramenta. Denique possumus
et nos dicere, Pares credimus, et uno sigillo signati sumus: nee aliter bap-
tizati quam vos. Nee aliter ordinati quam vos. Testamentum divinum legi-
mus pariter : unum Deum rogamus. Oratio dominica apud nos et apud vos
una est, sed scissura (ut supra diximus) facta, partibus hinc atque inde
pendentibus, sartura necessaria.

CHAP. I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 59
before, by the parts hanging this way and that way, an union
was necessary to restore the whole to its integrity." He re
peats this again in other1 places : " both you and we have
the same ecclesiastical conversation, the same common les
sons, the same faith, the .same sacraments of faith, the same
mysteries." And upon this score he frequently tells them
they were their brethren still, whether they would or not,
" Though the Donatists hate us," says he,2 " and abhor us,
and will hot be called our brethren, yet we cannot depart
from the fear of God : they are without doubt our brethren,
though not good brethren. Therefore let no one wonder,
that I call them brethren, who cannot be otherwise than our
brethren, seeing both tl^ey and we have one and the same
spiritual nativity, though our actions are different from one
another." " Ye cannot but be our brethren," says he again3
to them, " whom one mother the Church hath born in the
same bowels of her sacraments ; whom one God, as a
father, hath received after one and the same manner, as
adopted children. We all pray, our Father which art in
Heaven : whence you may perceive, that we are not totally
separated from one another, whilst we pray for you willing
ly, and you pray for us, though against your will. You may
hence see, brother Parmenian, that the sacred bonds of
brotherhood between us and you, cannot be totally broken
asunder." St. Austin always discourses after the same man
ner concerning this union in part: in many things ye are

1 Optat. lib. v. p. 84. Denique apud vos et apud nos una est ecclesiastica
conversatio, communes lectiones", eadem fides, ipsa fidei sacramenta, eadein
mjsteria. ' Lib. i. p. 34. Quamvis nos odio habent, et e^xecrentur,
et nolunt se dici fratres nostroS ; tamen nos recedere a timore Dei non pos-
sumus. — Sunt igitur sine dubio fratres, quamvis non boni. Quare nemo mi-
retur, eos me appellare fratres qui non possunt non esse fratres. Est quidem
nobis et illis una spiritualis nativitas, sed diversi sunt actus, &c. So in the
Conference of Carthage, die. iii. n. 233. the Catholics say, Propter sacra
menta frater est, sive bonus sive malus. s Optat. lib. iv. p. 77.
Non enim non potestis esse fratres, quos iisdem sacraraentorum visceribus
una mater ecclesia genuit ; quos eodem modo adoptivos filios Deus Pater
excepit. — Videtis nos non in totum ab invicem esse separates, dum et nos
pro vobis oramus volentes ; et vos pro nobis oretis, etsi nolentes. Vides,
frater Parmeniane, sancta germanitatis vincula inter nos et vos in totum
rumpi non posse.

gO THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
one1 with us, in baptism, in the creed, and the rest of God's
sacraments." And hence2 he also concludes, " that whether
they would or no, they were their brethren, and could not
cease to be so, so long as they continued to say, our Father,
and did not renounce their creed and their baptism, tor
there was no medium between Christians and Pagans. If
thev retained faith, and baptism, and the common prayer of
the"Lord, which teaches all men to style God their Father ;
so far they were Christians : and as far as they were Chris
tians, so far they were brethren, though turbulant and con
tentious, who would neither keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace, nor continue to be united in the Catholic
Church with the rest of their brethren."
By all this it is evident, 1. that there were different de
grees of unity and schism, according to the proportion of
which, a man was said to be more or less united to the
Church, or divided from it. 2. That they, who retained
faith, and baptism, and the common form of Christian wor
ship, were in those respects one with the Church ; though
in other respects, wherein their schism consisted, they were
divided from her. So they might be said to be brethren,
and not brethren ; sons of God, and not sons of God ; of the
house of God, and not of the house of God ; according to
the different acceptations of these terms, and the different
proportion and degrees of that unity or schism, whereby
they were united to the Church, or separated from her.
3. That to give a man the denomination of a true Catholic
Christian, absolutely speaking, it was necessary that he
should in all respects, and in every kind of unity be in per
fect and full communion with the Church ; that is, in faith,
in baptism, in holiness of life, in charity, in worship and
all holy offices, and in all the necessary parts of government
and discipline : but to denominate a man a schismatic, it
was sufficient to break the unity of the Church in any one

1 Aug. Ep. 48. ad Vincent, p. 71. In multis estis nobiscum, in baptismo,
in Simbolo, in ca?teris dominicis sacramentis. In spiritu autem unitatis, et
vinculo pacis, in ipsa denique catholica ecclesia nobiscum non estis.
1 Aug. in Psal. xxxii. Concion. ii. p. 91. Velint, nolint, fratres nostri
sunt. &c.

CHAP. H.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 61
respect ; though the malignity of his schism was to be in
terpreted more or less, according to the degrees of the sepa
ration that he made from her. And by these rules it is easy
for any one to understand, what the Ancients meant by unity
and schism, and how the discipline of the Church was exer
cised and maintained by obliging men to live in perfect and
full communion with her, which I come now more particu
larly to explain and consider.

CHAP. II.
Of the Discipline of the Church, and the various Kinds
of it, together with the various Methods observed in the
Administration of it.
Sect. 1. — That the Discipline of the Church did not consist in cancelling
or disannulling any Man's Baptism.
The discipline of the Church being intended, as was ob
served before, only to preserve the unity and purity of her
own members in one communion, we are not to look for the
exercise of it upon any but such as in some measure made
profession of being joined in society with her; which were
either baptised persons, or at least candidates of baptism:
for she pretended not to exercise discipline upon any others
which were without, but such only as were within the pale,
in the largest sense, by some act of their own profession.
And even upon these she never pretended to exercise her
discipline so far, as to cancel or disannul their baptism, so
as to oblige them to take a second baptism, if their first was
good, in order to be admitted into the Church again, when
for any crime they were cast out of it. For even heretics
and apostates, who made the greatest breach of Christian
unity, were never so far divided from the Church, but that
still they retained some distant relation- to her by baptism,
whose character was indelible, even in the greatest

62 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
apostacy that can be imagined, even in the total abjuration
of the Christian faith: the obligation of their baptism still
lay upon them, and with what severity soever they were
treated in their repentance, if ever they returned to the
Church again, there is no instance of receiving them by a
second baptism, which, if once lawfully given, was for ever
after forbidden to be. repeated upon any account whatso
ever. I will not stand to prove this here, because I have
had occasion once or twice1 before to speak largely upon
it; but only observe, that it was no part of the discipline of
the Church to deny men the original right they had in bap
tism ; and consequently that the most formal casting them
out of communion was never intended to signify, that they
were mere heathens and pagans, and that they could not be
admitted again into the Church without a repetition of their
baptism. Sect. 2.— But in excluding Men from the common Benefits and Priveleges
consequent to Baptism.
But the discipline of the Church consisted in a power to
deprive men of all the benefits and privileges of baptism,
by turning them out of the society and communion of the
Church, in which these privileges were only to be enjoyed ;
such as joining in public prayer, and receiving the eucha
rist, and other acts of divine worship : and sometimes they
were wholly forbidden to enter the church, so much as to
hear the Scriptures read, or hear a' sermon preached, till
they shewed some signs of relenting; and every one shun
ned and avoided them in common conversation, partly to
establish the Church's censures and proceedings against
them, and partly to make them ashamed, and partly to
secure themselves from the danger of contagion and in
fection.

1 Book xii. chap. v. and Scholastical History of Baptism, part ii.
chap. vi.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 63

Sect. 3. — This Power originally a mere spiritual Power, though in some
Cases the secular Arm was called in to give its Assistance.
Thus far the Church went in her censures by her own
natural right and power, but no further: for her power
originally was a meTe spiritual power ; her sword only a
spiritual sword, as Cyprian1 terms it, to affect the soul, and
not the body. Over the bodies of men she pretended no
power ; no nor yet over their estates, except such as were
purely ecclesiastical, and of her own donation, to resume
what was her own property and gift from such as were con
tumacious and rebellious against her censures. In which
case she sometimes craved assistance from the secular
power, even whilst it was heathen, and more frequently
when it was become Christian. Thus when the Council of
Antioch had deposed Paulus Samosatensis, and substituted
Domnus in his room, but could not remove him by any
power of their own from the house belonging to the
church, which he still kept possession of, they had re
course to Aurelian, the heathen Emperor, who did them
justice upon appeal, ordering the house to be delivered to
those, to whom the bishops of Italy and Rome should write
with approbation. " And so," says Eusebius,2 " Paul
was cast out of the church with the highest disgrace by
the help of the secular power." This was more common
after the Emperors where become Christians : for then they
could with greater liberty and confidence appeal to them,
and beg their assistance upon such occasions. And then
canons where made to authorise such addresses, that the
censures of the Church might have their effect and force
upon contumacious and obstinate offenders. Such an order
was made in the Council of Antioch,3 Anno 341, in the reign
of Constantius, " that if a presbyter, who set up a separate

1 Cypr. Ep. lxii. al. iv. ad Pompon, p. 9'. Spirituall gladio superbi
etcontumaces necantur, dum de ecclesia ejiciuntur. * Euseb.
lib. vii. cap. 30. Mfrd rije lax&rnc. ala%vvi\g viro rije Kooyiucjje opx^C
ItiikavvtTai rijc tKicKnaiac. 8 Con. Antioch. can. v. Ei ti
*opa/t6v»i Sopu/3aii/ £, dva^arlov ri\v iKKkntriav, ti& rije ZZuiSiiv ilstriac wc
raaMti avrbv tirizptfaoStai.

64 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
meeting against his bishop, and was, after admonition, depo
sed for his crime, still continued obstinately to disturb and
subvert the Church, he should be corrected by the external
power, that is, the civil magistrate, as a seditious person
Such another canon was made in the third Council of
Carthage,1 in the case of oneCresconius, an African bishop,
who having left his own bishopric, and intruded himself into
another, where he stayed in spite of all ecclesiastical cen
sures, orders were given to petition the secular magistrate
by his authority to remove him. And this canon was in
serted as a general and standing rule into the African Code.2
Where we have also a like constitution3 against such pres
byters, as set up new bishoprics in the diocese of their own
bishop without his consent : they were to be deprived and
removed out of such places, as rebels, 'Apxcvriiq) cvva-sda,
by the governing power of the secular magistrate. And in
another canon4 mention is made of letters to be sent from
the synod to the magistrates of Africa, to petition them to
yield their assistance to their common mother, the Catholic
Church, against the Donatists, for as much as the authority
of bishops was contemned in every city. This petition is
more particularly explained in another canon,5 which grants
a commission to certain bishops to go as legates in the name
of the Church, to the Emperors, Arcadius and Honorius,
and complain of the violences offered by the Donatists, who
had invaded many of their Churches, and kept them by
force ; against which they desired the Emperors to grant
them a suitable help by a military guard ; it being no unusual
thing, nor against the Scripture, to be protected, as St. Paul
was, by a band of soldiers against the conspiracy of insolent
and factious men. They requested also, that the Emperors
would put in execution the law, which Theodosius their
father, of pious memory, had enacted against heretics,
whereby every one that ordained, or was ordained by them,

1 Con. Carth. iii. can. 38. Dignemini dare fiduciam, qua, necessitate ipsa
cogente, liberum ad proesidem regionis adversus illClm accedere, secundum
constitutionis cl.'imperatorum  ut secularis magistratus auctoritate pro-
hibeatur. " Cod. Afric. can. xlix. s Cod. Afric. can. liv.
* Ibid. can. lxviii. ' Cod. Afric. can. xcjii. al. 95.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. fi.j
was amerced in the sum of ten pounds of gold. The law,
they refer to, is still extant in the Theodosian Code, running
in these terms,1 " If proof is made against any, who are en
gaged in heretical errors, that they either have ordained
clerks, or received the office of a olerk, a mulct of ten pounds
in gold, is by our order to be impqsed upon them : and
the place, in which any of these unlawful things were at
tempted, if done by the connivance of the owner, shall be
confiscated. But if the possessor was ignorant of the mat
ter, then he that rented the farm, if he be a freeman, shall
forfeit ten pounds of gold to the exchequer ; or if he be
descended of a servile condition, and cannot bear the penal
ty, then he shall be beaten with rods, and sent into banish
ment." This was that famous penal law of Theodosius
against all heretics in general, so often mentioned by
St. Austin, and which he with the rest of the African Fathers
desired Honorius to confirm, so as it might specify and
affect the Donatists, more particularly such of them, as by-
open or secret violence made assaults upon the Catholic
Church. They did not desire, that this penalty should be
inflicted indifferently upon all the Donatists, but only such
as the Circumcellions and others, who in their mad zeal and
fury committed violent outrages against the Catholics : but
Honorius extended the penalty to them all, and enforced
the old law of Theodosius, his father, by a new law of his
own, wherein the Donatists were particularly named as
heretics,2 who upon conviction, or confession, were to be
fined in the sum of ten pounds of gold, according to the
tenour of the former law. No one better understood either
the reasons or the effects of this law than St. Austin, and
therefore it cannot be better explained than, as Gothofred
does it, in his words. Now he, writing to Count Boniface,
an African magistrate, gives this account of it: " before

1 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v. de Ha?reticis. leg. xxi. In hsereticis erro-
ribus quoscunque constiterit vel ordinasse clericos, vel suscepisse officium
clericorum, denis libris auri viritim multandos esse censemus, &c.
* Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v. leg. 39. Donatista? superstitionis msreticos,
quocunque loci, vel fatentes, vel corivictos, legis tenore servato, pcenam
debitam absque dilatione persolvere decernimus.
VOL. VI. ' F

fi<5 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [*OOK XVL
those laws," says he,1 « were sent into Afric, which compel
heretics to come in to the Church, some of our brethren,
among whom I was one, were of opinion, that although the
madness of the Donatists raged every where, yet we should
not petition the emperors to forbid any one simply to be
of that heresy, by inflicting punishment on all that em
braced it; but only desire them to make a law to restrain
them from offering violence to any, that either preached or
held the Catholic faith. Which we thought might in some
measure be done after this manner: if the law of Iheodosius
of pious memory, which he had promulged against all here
tics in general, that whoever was found to be a bishop or
clerk, any where among them, should forfeit ten pounds
in gold, were more expressly confirmed against the Dona
tists, who denied themselves to be heretics, in such a man
ner, as that the penalty should notbe inflicted upon them all,
but only upon such, in whose, regions the .Catholic Church
suffered violence from their clergy, or the Circumcellions, or
their people, so as after the protestation of the Catholics,
who suffered from them, the magistrates should compel
their bishops or ministers to pay the fine. For so we
thought, that by this means they might be terrified from
daring any such attempts, and the Catholic truth might be
taught and held freely, so as no one should be compelled to
it, but every one, that would, might embrace it without fear,
and we should have no false or counterfeit Catholics. And
though others of our brethren were of a different opinion,
who by their age had greater experience, and could plead
the example of many cities and places, where wre saw the
Catholic Church firmly and truly settled, which yet was
there settled by such kind methods of divine Providence,
whilst men were compelled by the laws of former emperors.

1 Aug. Ep. 1. ad Sonifac; p. 84. Antequam istie leges, quibus ad convi-
vium sanctum coguntur intrare, in Africanj mitterentur, nonnullis fratribus
in quibus et ego eram, quamvis Donatistarum rabies usquequaque sseviret,
videbatur non esse petendum ab imperatoribus, ut ipsam haeresin juberent
omnino non esse poenam constituendo eis, qui in ilia esse voluissent, sed
hoc potius constituerent, ut eorum furiosas violentias non paterentur qui ve
ritatem catholicam vel prsedicarent loquendo, vel legerent constituendo, &c.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ()7
to come in to the Catholic communion, yet notwithstanding
this we prevailed, that our petition should be presented to
the Emperors in the foresaid form. And thereupon a decree
was drawn up in council, and our legates were dispatched to
court. But the greater mercy of God, who better knew
how necessary the terror of such laws, and a little medicinal
trouble is, for the wicked or cold hearts of many men, and
for that hardness of mind, which cannot be corrected by
words, but may by a little severity of discipline, so ordered
the matter, that our legates could not obtain the thing they
had undertaken. For before they could get to court to pre
sent our petition, several grievous complaints had been
made by the bishops of other places, who had suffered ex
tremely from the Donatists, and were driven from their sees
by them : especially the horrible and incredible murder of
Maximian, the Catholic bishop of Vaga, made it impossible
for our embassy to succeed. For now a law was already
promulged against the barbarous Donatist heresy, the very-
sparing which seemed rnore cruel than the cruelty which
themselves exercised, that not only its violence, but its very
being should not be tolerated or suffered to go unpunished.
Yet to observe Christian meekness, even toward the un
worthy, the penalty proposed was not death, but only a pe
cuniary mulct, and banishment for the bishops and minis
ters." Then relating particularly the barbarous usage of
Maxianian, and their unparalleled cruelty towards him, he
adds, " that the Emperor being well apprised of these facts,
in his great piety and concern for religion, chose rather uni
versally to correct that impious error by wholesome laws,
and reduce those, who carried the badge of Christ against
Christ, to Catholic unity by terror and punishment, than
barely to take from them the liberty of exercising their
cruelty, and leave them at liberty to err. and perish." He
observes further, " that as soon as ever these laws appeared
in 'Afric, they wrought wonderful effects upon the minds
of men : for immediately all such as waited only for a pro
ber occasion, or were kept back merely by the dread of the
cruelty of those frantic men, or were afraid to offend their
relations, came over at once to the Catholic Church. Many
F 2

f>8 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
also, who were detained in schism merely by the custom ,
they had been trained up to by their parents, but had never
spent a thought about the grounds and reasons of their
error, nor would consider or make any inquiry into the
merits of the cause ; when once they began to consider it,
and found nothing in it worth suffering so great losf, they
without any difficulty became Catholic Christians. For a
concern for their own safety brought them to understanding,
who before were grown negligent by security. Many also,
who were less capable of understanding and judging by
themselves, what was the difference between the error of
the Donatists and the Catholic truth, were induced to follow
the authority and persuasion of so many examples going
before them. So the true mother received great multitudes
of people into her bosom egain rejoicing, and only an har
dened company remained obstinate by their unhappy ani
mosity in that pernicious way. And many of these also
communicated with the Church by a sort of dissimulation:
but they, who at first dissembled, afterwards by degrees
accustoming themselves to the way of the Church, and
hearing the preaching of truth, especially after the confe
rence and disputation which was held between their bishops
and us at Carthage, did at last for the most part correct
theiT errors also."
This is the account which St. Austin gives both of the
reasons and effects of this penal law, which he frequently'
mentions in other places, carefully collected by Gothofred,
but needless here to be recited. I only observe these few
things upon the whole matter. 1. That though it was
no part of the Church's discipline to use any manner of
force to give effect to her censures ; yet in case of obstinate
opposition and contempt she did not think it unlawful to
take the assistance of the secular power. 2. That in case
of violence offered to the Church or any of her ministers or
her members, there was still more reason to petition for
defence against them. 3. That it was generally thought

1 Aug. Ep. 68. ad Januar. Donatist. Ep. 166. ad Donatistas. Ep. 173. ad
Crispinum Donatist. Cont. Crescon. lib. iii. cap. 47. Cont. Liter. Petilian.
lib. ii. cap. 83.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. GJ
useful to inflict some moderate temporal punishments upon
obstinate heretics, and schismatics, and other offenders,
(with a liberty of indulging, and remitting the penalty, as
prudence directed,) in order to bring them to consider and ex
amine the grounds of truth and error, and humble them by
repentance, and restore them to the communion of the
Church from whence they were fallen.

S^ct. 4. — This "Assistance never required to proceed so far, as, for
mere Error, to take away Life, or shed Blood.
But then it is also to be considered, that the Church
never encouraged any magistrate to proceed further in her
behalf against any one for any mere error, or ecclesiastical
misdemeanour, than to punish the delinquent with a pecu
niary mulct, or bodily punishment short of death, such as
confiscation or banishment, unless it were in case of capi
tal crimes, and of a civil nature, which fell directly under
the cognizance of the civil magistrate, as treason or rebel
lion, which the imperial laws punished with, death. There
are indeed some laws in the Theodosian Code, which order
heretics to be prosecuted with capital punishments. Theo
dosius,1 made a decree against some of the Manichees,
which went by the name of encratites, saccophori, and
hydroparastatce , that they should be punished with death,
at the same time that the solitarii, another sect among
them, should only suffer confiscation. And Honorius re
newed the same law against them.2 And in two other laws
he ordered the Donatists, in Afric to be put to death,3 if
they held any public conventicles to the prejudice of the
Catholic faith, revoking all tolerations that had been granted
them before. But as these laws were very rare, so they

1 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 5. de Ha?reticis. leg. ix. Summo supplicio et
inexplieabili poena jubemusaffligi. 2 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi.
tit. 5. de Ha?ret. leg. 35. 8 Ibid. leg. 51. Oraculo penitus
remoto, quo ad ritus suos ha?retica? superstitiones obrepserant, sciant omnes
sancta? legis inimici plectendos se poena proscriptionis et sanguinis, si ultra
convenire per publicum, execranda sceleris sui temeritate temptaVrint.
An. 410. Vid. ibid. leg. 56.

70 THIS ANTIQUITIES OF THIS [BOOK XVI.
may be supposed to be. made upon some particular provo
cation of their enormities, such as the Manichees were
guilty of; or their barbarous outrages committed against
the Catholics, such as the Circumcellions among the Dona
tists every where stand charged with. Then again, it was as
rare to find these laws at any time put in execution against
them. For we scarce find an instance before Priscilliari
of any heretic suffering death barely for his opinion. Sozo-
men, speaking of this lavv of Theodosius, says,1 it was made
more for terror, than execution. And Chrysostom at the
same time delivered his opinion freely, that the tares were
not thus to be rooted out:2 for if heretics were to be put
to death, there would be nothing but eternal war in the
world. Christ does not prohibit us to restrain heretics, to
stop their mouths, to cut off their liberty, and their meetings,
and their conspiracies, but only to kill and slay them. St,
Austin seems not to have known any thing- of this law of
Theodosius; and for those of Honorius, they were not yet
enacted against the Donatists, when he wrote against
them. Therefore writing, frequently to the African magis
trates, he tells them, the law gave them no power to put
any Donatist to death. Thus in his letter, to Dulcitius, the
tribune,3 " You," says he, " have not received the power of
the sword against them by any laws, neither by any impe
rial injunctions, which you are obliged to execute, are you
commanded to put them to death." So he tells Petilian,
the Donatist bishop, " that God had so ordered the matter
in his providence, having the hearts of kings in his hand,
that though the emperor had made many laws to admonish
and correct them,* yet there was no imperial law which
commanded them to be put to death. The judges indeed
had power to punish malefactors with death, as murderers,

1 Sozom. lib. vij. «. 12. 2 Chrys. Horn, xlvii. in Mat. p. 422. Ou yap
Stc avaipav alptriKOv litd ttoXe/joc a<T7rov<5o£ Ug rr)v otKBjUEi/T/i/ ifitWev
ztaayea9at. &c. s Aug. Ep. 61. ad Dulcitiam. Non tu in eos jus gladii ul-
lis legibus acceptisti, aut imperialibus constitutis, quorum tibi injuncta est
executio, hoc pra?ceptum est, ut necentur. 4 Aug. cont. literas Petiliani.
lib. ii. cap. 83. Multas ad vos commonendos et corripiendos leges ipse con-
stituit: nulla tamen lex regia vos jussit occidi.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 7L
and the like ; and so perhaps some of the Donatists might
suffer ; but that was not for their opinion barely. And even
in that case, when it was the cause of the Church, the Ca
tholic bishops commonly interceded for them, that the
deaths of their martyrs might not be revenged with blood."
" For no good men in the Catholic Church," says St.
Austin,1 " are pleased to have any one, although he be an
heretic, prosecuted unto death." Therefore writing to one
Donatus, a proconsul in Afric, he tells him,9 " they desired
that the terror of judges and laws might correct them, so
as to preserve them from the punishment of eternal judg
ment, but not kill them ; that discipline might not be ne
glected toward them, and yet that they might not undergo
the punishment which they really deserved. Therefore
punish their crimes in such manner, as that the authors may
continue in being, to repent of them. We beseech you,
when any cause of the Church comes before you, although
you know the Church to be assaulted and afflicted by their
injurious villanies, yet then forget that you have the power
of killing, and do not forget our petition. Let it not seem
vile and contemptible in your eyes, that we, who pray to
God to correct them, intercede with you not to kill them.
Let your prudence also consider this, that no one besides
ecclesiastics is concerned to bring ecclesiastical causes
before you.- so that if you should resolve to put such cri
minals to death, who are accused of acting wickedly against
the Church, you will deter us from bringing any more such
actions before your tribunal : and that will make them
more licentious, and daringly bold to assault us, and work
our ruin, when they know we are under such a necessity, to
chuse rather to be slain by them, than bring them to be
slain before your tribunals." He pleads after the same

1 Cont. Crescon. lib. iii. cap. 50. Nullis tamen bonis in catholica hoc
placet, si usque ad mortem in quenquain, licet ha?reticum, sa?viatur.
s Aug. Ep. 127. ad Donat. Ex occasione terribilium judicum ac legum
ne in a?terni judicii posnas incidant, corrigi eos cupimus, non necari ; ncc
disciplinam circa eos negligi voluinus, nee suppliciis quibus digni sunt
exerceri, &c.

72 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
manner in another Letter, to Marcellinus,1 the tribune in
behalf of some Donatists, who confessed themselves guilty,
of murdering some of the Catholic clergy. " I beseech
you," says he, "let their punishment be short of death,
though their crimes be so great, both for our conscience
sake, and to commend the lenity and meekness of the
Catholic Church." A little after he intreats him to inter
cede in his name to the proconsul for them. " I hear it is
in the power of the judge to mollify the rigour of the law
in giving sentence, and to use greater mildness in punish
ing than the laws command. But if he will not at my re
quest consent to this, let him however grant me this favour,
to keep them in prison till I can send to the emperor, and
obtain of his clemency,2 that the passions or martyrdoms of
the servants of God, which ought to be glorious in the
Church, be not stained and defiled with the blood of their
enemies." He urges the same argument in his next Letter
to this Marcellinus with greater earnestness, conjuring him
by all that is sacred, not to proceed to the utmost extre
mity against some Circumcellions and Donatist clergy, who
were convicted of murdering two of his presbyters belong
ing to the Church of Hippo, after having first barbarously
struck out an eye, and cut off the finger of one of them. " I
am under the greatest concern imaginable," says he, " lest
your highness should decree their punishment by the utmost
severity of the law, to make them suffer the same things3
that they have done. Therefore I beseech you in these
letters by the faith which you have in Christ, by the mercy
of the Lord Jesus, that you neither do this, nor suffer it to
be done. For though we might excuse ourselves from their
death, forasmuch as it was not by any accusation of ours,

1 Aug. Ep. 158. ad Marcellin. Pcena sane illorum, quamvis de tantis
sceleribus confessorum, rogo te ut prater supplicium mortis sit et propter
conscientiam nostram, et propter catholicam mansuetudinem commendandam.
3 Ibid. Hoc de dementia imperatoris impetrare curabimus, ne passiones
seivorura Dei, qua? debent esse in ecclesia gloriosa?, inimicorum sanguine
dehonestentur. 8 Aug. Ep. 159. Sollicitudo mihi maxima
incussa est, ne forte sublimitas tua censeat, eos tanta legum severitate plec-
tendos, ut qualia fecerunt, talia patiantur. — Nolumus passiones servorum
Dei quasi vice talionis paribus suppliciis vindicari.

CHAP. il.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

73

but by the information of those who have the care of pre
serving the public peace, that they were brought in ques
tion ; yet we would not have the passions of the servants of
God be revenged with the like punishments, as it were by
way of retaliation. Not that we are against depriving
wicked men of the liberty of committing such villanous
actions, but because we rather think it sufficient, without
either killing them, or maiming them in any part of their
body, to bring them by coercion of the laws, from these mad
and turbulent practices, to live peaceably and soberly, or at
least instead of these wicked works, to engage them in some
useful employment." He yet again more pathetically urges
the same matter to one Apringius, another African judge,1
in these very affectionate and moving terms, pleading for
mercy toward the same Circumcellions. ' " I am afraid lest
they, who have committed this murder, should be sentenced
to death by your power. That this may not be done, I
that am a Christian, beseech you the judge, I that am a bi
shop exhort you that are a Christian. I know the Apostle
says, Ye bear not the sword in vain, but are ministers of
God to execute wrath upon them that do evil. But the
cause of the State is one thing, and the cause of the Church
another. The administration of that (the State) is to be
carried on by terror, but the meekness of the Church is to
be commended by her clemency." Then using several ar
guments, he adds a little after, " If nothing short of death
could be imposed upon them, for o,ur part we had rather
they should be set at liberty, than that the passions of our
brethren should be revenged by shedding the blood of
their enemies. But now since there is room both to shew
the gentleness of the Church, and also to restrain the au
daciousness of the cruel, why should you not incline to the
more provident side and milder sentence, which judges
have liberty to do even in causes where the Church is not
concerned'? Therefore stand in awe with us of the judgment
of God the Father, and demonstrate the clemency of the
Church your mother. For what you do, the Church does

Aug. Ep. 160. ad Apringium.

74 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK

XVI.

for whose sake you do it, and whose you are that do it.
Therefore contend and vie goodness with the evil. They
by monstrous inhumanity and wickedness tear off the mem
bers from the living body : do you in mercy cause their
members, which were exercised in such barbarous works,
to remain whole and untouched in them, that they may
henceforth serve to work, at some useful labour. They
spared not the servants of God preaching reformation to
them, but do you spare them that have been apprehended
in their crimes, spare them that have been presented to
your examination, spare them that have been convicted ber
fore you. They with the sword of unrighteousness shed
Christian blood : do you withhold even the lawful sword of
judgment from being imbrued in their blood. They slew
the rhinister of the Church, and thereby deprived him of the
time of living : do you let the enemies of the Church live,
and thereby grant them a time of repenting. Thus it be
comes a Christian judge to act in the cause of the Church,
at our request, at our admonition, at our intercession.
Other men are wont to appeal from the mildness of the
sentence, when their enemies are too favourably dealt with
upon conviction : but we so love our enemies, that if we
did not presume upon your Christian obedience, we should
appeal from the severity of your sentence."
After this manner St. Austin always pleads for favour to
be shewn to the Donatists, that they should not be prose
cuted unto blood, in the cause of the Church, though it
were for a capital crime, which in a civil case would infal
libly have been punished with death without redemption.
And certainly they, who were so tender of their enemies'
lives, when they were guilty of such flagrant crimes of
violent outrages against the Church, could never think it
lawful to sentence them to death for mere error in opinion.
And therefore, though Honorius made some such laws,
after St. Austin had written all this; yet we never find the
Church approved them, or desired they should be put in
execution : but on the contrary always stood firm to her
own character, which we have heard before in the words of
St. Austin: that is, that no good men in the Catholic
Church were pleased with having heretics prosecuted

CHAP. 1I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 75
unto death. Lesser punishments, they thought, might
have their use, as means sometimes to bring them to
consideration and repentance : but to take away their
lives was to deprive them at once of all means and
opportunity of repenting. Besides that it was invidious
to the Church, and rather a confirmation to heresy : for
such as were slain, were always reckoned martyrs by their
party. Thus the Donatists honoured their Circumcellions,
which were slain in the encounter with Macarius, whom
the Emperor Constans sent into Afric in a peaceable manner
to scatter his gifts among them, and try to reduce them to
unity by his kindness : they were the aggressors, and forced
him to require aid of the governors to defend himself against
their assaults, and yet those, that were slain in such necessa
ry defence, were by them reputed martyrs and the Catholics
were nick-named Macarians, and these called the Macarian
days, that is, in their language, days of persecution. And
in answer to this, Optatus was forced to tell them, first, that
the fact was false : no violence was used toward them ;
there was no terror in the first design ; they neither felt rod
nor imprisonment ; but only exhortations to peace.1 And
secondly, if any violence was offered to them, they called
it upon themselves by their own insolency, obliging the
emperor's officer or almoner to defend himself against the
rude insults of the Circumcellions. Meanwhile whatever
happened, was neither done by the desire, nor the counsel,
nor the knowledge, nor the concurrence of the Church. A
like instance happened in the case of the Priseillianists.
Priscillian and some of his accomplices, were by Maximus
the Emperor, at the instigation of Ithacius, a fierce and
sanguinary bishop, sentenced unto death. This gave occa
sion to the followers of Priscillian to triumph in the sufferings
of their leader. For as Sulpicius Severus 'observes,2 his

1 Optat. lib. iii. p. 62. Nullus erat primitus terror. Nemo viderat vir
gam; nemo custodiam : sola fuerant hortamenta. &c. Et tamen horum om
nium nihil actum est cum voto nostro, nihil cum consilio, nihil cum consci-
entia, nihil cum opere.
* Sever. Hist. lib. ii. p. 120. Priscilliano occiso, non solum non repres-
sa est Hseresis, qua illo authore proruperat, sed confirmata, latins propa-

7-3

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

death was so far from suppressing the heresy, that it gave
confirmation to it, and made it spread further than other
wise it would have done. For his followers, who before
honoured him as a saint, afterwards began to reverence him
as a martyr. The thing was utterly displeasing to all good
men, who were interested and attached to the Ithacian party,
St. Martin, bishop of Tours, not only rebuked Ithacius for
his over zealous prosecution,1 but interceded with Maximus
the Emperor to abstain from shedding their blood, telling
him, it was enough to expel heretics from their Churches,
after they were once condemned by ^the episcopal judgment :
and he obtained a promise of Maximus, not to decree any
thing against their lives. From which when he departed
by the persuasion of others, and condemned them to death,
St. Martin, would never after be induced to communicate
with those sanguinary men, save once in a small matter, .of
which he also repented, and continued his aversion to them
all his days, as the same historian informs us.2 Now from
all this it is plain, that whatever favour or assistance the
ancient Church required of the civil magistrates, to back
her discipline with, against heretics or other delinquents,
she never desired them to unsheath the sword in her cause,
or punish them with death ; but always interposed in their
behalf, that they might have the favour to live and repent^
if ever any sanguinary laws, which were very rare, and no
ways encouraged or approved by the Church, were made
against them. The discipline of fire and faggot, and inqui
sitions, and a thousand other tortures, which under pretence
of mercy has spilt so much Christian blood, are inventions
of later ages, and more corrupt and degenerate times, when
men had forgot the spirit of Christianity, and the character
of our blessed Lord, who " came not to destroy men's lives,
but to save them."

gata est. Namque setcatores ejus, qui eum prius ut sanctum honoraverant,
postea ut martyrem colere coeperunt.
1 Sever. Hist. lib. ii. p. 119. Non desinebat increpare Ithacium, ut ab
accusatiouedesisteret : Maximum orare, ut sanguine infelicium abstineret :
satis superque suflicere, ut episcopali sententia hseretici judicati ecclesiis
pellerentur, &c. a Sever, dial. iii. n. 15.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 77

Sect. 5. — The Discipline of the Church deprived no Man of his natural
or civil Rights ; much less the Magistrate of his Power, or Allegiance
due to him.
It was no part of the ancient discipline to deprive men
of their natural or civil rights. A master did not lose his
natural authority over his family, nor a parent over his chil
dren, by losing the privileges of Christian communion. A
judge did not lose his office or charge in the state, by being
cast out of the Church. For many such enjoyed their power
and jurisdiction under Constantius and other heretical princes,
notwithstanding the Churchs censure. Though now it is
the common doctrine of the Romish Church, as Cardinal
Tolet1 delivers it for the instruction of priests, that an ex
communicated person cannot exercise any act of jurisdiction
without sin ; nay, and if his excommunication be made public,
all his sentences are null and of no effect. This rule is
designed against sovereign powers, to weaken the hands
of princes by displacing their officers, under pretence of
excommunication. But the Church of Rome goes further
and puts it in the power of the Pope to lay princes under
the highest excommunication or anathema, and then by
virtue of that to depose them from their thrones, and absolve
subjects from their allegiance, and dispose of their king
doms to whom they think fit. Of which practice there is
not the least footstep in all the discipline of the primitive
Church for many ages, nor scarce any unquestionable in
stance of such an attempt before the time of Pope Hilde-
brand, or Gregory VII. (from whom this doctrine is called
the Hildebrandin doctrine,) as some of their own historians
ingenuously confess. " I have read over and over again,"
says Otho Frisingensis,2 a noble German bishop, " the

1 Tolet. de Instruct. Sacerdot. lib. i. cap. iii. Excommunicatus non
potest exercere actum jurisdictionis absque peccato : imo si publica estex-
communicatio facta, sententia? nulla? sunt. Vid. du Moulin's Buckler of Faith.
p. 370. Et Decretal. Gregor. lib. ii. tit. xxvii. de sententia et Re Judic.
cap. xxiv. * Otho Frising. lib. vi. cap. 35. Lego et re-
lego Romanorum regum etimperatorum gesta, et nusquam invenio quenquam
eorum ante hunc & Romano pontifice excommunicatum, vel regno privatum,

78 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
records of the Roman kings and emperors, and I no where
find that any of them before this was excommunicated, or
deprived of his kingdom by the bishop of Rome ; unless
any one think fit to call that anathematizing, when Philip,
the Emperor, was placed among the penitents for a little
time by the Roman bishop ; or when Theodosius for his
cruel slaughter of the Thessalonians, was debarred from
entering the Church by St. Ambrose." There is no ques
tion but that princes anciently were sometimes denied the
communion, as St. Ambrose denied Theodosius: but as
that was not properly putting them under the great excom
munication, or anathema, so much less was it depriving
them of their legal power and dominion. Constantius was
an heretic, and Julian an apostate ; Valens and Valentinian
the younger were professed Arians ; Anastasius and many
others, abettors and propugners of several heresies; yet
the Church never pretended to withdraw her allegiance from
them, or depose them: neither was this for want of power,
as Bellarmin and others commonly pretend, but for want
of just authority and right : for the Church in those days
knew nothing either of a direct or indirect power, that the
Pope or any other bishop had over the temporal rights of
princes; but professed obedience to them, whether they,
were heathens, or heretics ; in the Church, or out of the
Church ; persecutors, or friends : as the reader, that plea
ses, may see more fully demonstrated in the elaborate work
of our learned Bishop Buckridge, in defence of Barclay
against Bellarmin,1 concerning the pretended power of the
Pope in temporals, and his usurpation of a right to dethrone
princes. Where among many other unanswerable argu
ments, he confirms the forementioned observation of Otho
Frisingensis, that Hildebrand was the first that put this
wicked doctrine in practice against the Emperor Henry IV.

nisi quis forte pro anathemate habendum ducat, quod Philippus ad breve
tempus a Romano episcopo inter pcenitentes coUocatus : et Theodosiua &
Heatp Anjbrosio propter cruentam ca?dem a liminibus ecclesiae seques-
trains git.
1 Joan. Roffensis, de Potestate Papa? in rebus Temporalibus, &c. Lond.
1684.. lib. ii. cap. 10.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHUROH. 79
from the concurrent testimony of almost twenty writers of
the Roman communion. I shall pursue this matter no fur
ther here, having said what is sufficient to confirm this
remark about the discipline of the Church, that it deprived
no man of his natural or civil rights, much less gave any
one authority to dethrone princes, or absolve subjects from
their allegiance, or dispose of their kingdoms under pre
tence of setting up the spiritual sword above the temporal.
Sect. 6. — But consisted 1st. in Admonition of the Offender.
But the discipline of the Church, being a mere spiritual
power, was confined to these following acts. First, the
admonition of the offender ; which was solemnly repeated
once or twice commonly, before they proceeded to greater
severities, according to that of the Apostle: " A man
that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition
reject." After this manner St. Ambrose1 represents their
proceedings : " A putrified member of the body is never
cutoff but with grief: we try a long time, whether it
cannot be healed with medicines ; if not, then a good phy
sician cuts it off. Such is the affection of a good bishop;
he is very desirous first to heal the infirm, to put a stop
to growing ulcers, to burn and sear a little, and not cut off:
at last he cuts off with grief what cannot be healed." So
Prosper says,2 " They that being long endured, and often
kindly admonished, will not be corrected, are cut off' as
putrified members with the sword of excommunication."
And thus Synesius represents his own proceedings against
Andronicus,tbe tyrannical governor of Ptolemais, who made
use of his power only to oppress and vex the people. He
first tried whether admonitions and remonstrances against

1 Ambros. de Offic. lib. ii. cap. 27. Cum dolore amputatur etiam quae
putruit pars corporis, et diu tractatur si potest sanari medicamentis : si non
potest, tunc a medico bono abscinditur. Sic episcopi affectus bopi est, ut
oportet sanare infirmos, serpentia auferre ulcera, adurere aliqua, nop ab-
scindere : Postrerad quod sanari non potest, cum dolore abscindere.
8 Prosper, de Vit Contemplat. lib. ii. cap. 7. Qui diu portati et salubriter
objurgati, corrigi noluerint, tanquam putres corporis partes debent ferre
excommunicationis abscindi.

80 THE ANT1QUIT1E3 OF THE [BOOK XVI.
his cruelty1 would work upon him : but when they proved
ineffectual, and the man grew more outrageous and incorri
gible, breaking out into that blasphemous expression, that
in vain did any man hope for succour from the Church, and
that no man should escape his hands, although he laid hold
of the foot of Christ himself: after this, says Synesius/
" he was no longer to be admonished, but cut oft' as an
incurable member, for fear the sound parts should be cor
rupted by his society and contagion." And so he proceeded
to pronounce that formal excommunication against him,
which we shall hear more of by and by.
Sect. 7. — 2dly, In Suspension from the Communion called the Lesser
Excommuication.
Some call this the UpoSea/jLia, the warning,3 or time given
them to repent, which was limited sometimes to the space
of ten days :* after which if they continued obstinate and
refractory, the Church proceeded to greater severities, to
deny them communion by the lesser or greater excommuni
cation. The lesser excommunication was commonly called,
,A<j)opio-fi6g, separation or suspension • and it consisted in
excluding men from the participation of the eucharist, and
prayers of the faithful ; but did not expel them the Church,
for still they might stay to hear the psalmody, andreading
of the Scriptures, and the sermon, and the prayer of the
catechumens and the penitents, and then depart with them,
when that first service, called, the service of the catechu
mens, was ended. Theodoret expressly distinguishes this
lesser excommunication from the greater, when speaking
of some, who had lapsed into sin rather by infirmity
than maliciousness, he says,5 they should be debarred
from partaking of the holy mysteries, but not debarred

« Synes.Ep.lvii. > * Synes. Ep. lviii. p. 199. ohdn
veSfETEOQ 6 avSrpairog, aXK' laairip fitKoc aviariag i%ov, airoKOTrTtbQ. &c.
3 Habert. Archieratic. p. 739. Epist. Joan. Antioch. ad Nestorium
* Celestin. Ep. ad Nestor. « Theod. Ep. lxxvii. ad Eu-
lahum. torn. iii. p. 947. KuXultrSwaj/ jiiv rr,e juraXjtytwc, tUv Upwv uvrti-
piuv, lit) ewXiretT&wtTav tk rrjc r&v Karnxeyiviav evxve, &c.

CHAP. H.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 81
from the prayers or service of the catechumens. And
thus we are to understand that canon of Gregory Thauma-
turgus,1 which orders such to be excommunicated from
prayers, as detained the goods of their brethren, (which
they had lost in the invasion of the barbarians) under
pretence of having found them. Prayers there, means
the prayers of the faithful at the altar, or the commu
nion-service, from which they were suspended, and not
the prayers of the catechumens, at which they might be
present, notwithstanding their suspension from the other.
So that this was a lower degree of punishment, excluding
them in part only from the society of the faithful, that is,
from the common prayers and the eucharist, but not
totally expelling them the Church. And it was com
monly inflicted for lesser crimes ; or if for greater, upon
such sinners only as shewed immediately a ready disposition
to submit to the laws, of repentance : there being some
thing in their forwardness to entitle them to a more
favourable sentence. The Council of Eliberis* orders
this sort of abstention from the eucharist for three
weeks to be inflicted on those, who, without any necessary
avocation, neglected to come to Church for three Lord's
days together. And in another canon suspends such
women for a year,3 as were guilty of ante-nuptial
fornication; ordering them to be received again without
public penance, provided they were married to the persons
by whom they were defiled, living chastely with them for
the future. Albaspiny here rightly observes, that this was
only depriving them of the eucharist, for they were neither
expelled' the Church, nor obliged to go through any of the
stages of public penance, but might pray with the cate
chumens, and with the faithful also ; only they were not

1 Greg. Thaumaturg. can. v. ofic <5tt iiacqpvZai t&v evx&v. Vid. Con.
Ilerdens. can. iv. et. v.
1 Con. Eliber. can. xxi. Si quis in civitate positus, tres dominicas ad
ecclesiam non accesserit, tanto tempore abstineat, ut correptus esse videatur.
8 Ibid. can. xiv. Virgines, qua? virginitatem suam non custodierint, si
eosdem qui eas viojaverint, duxerint et tenuerint ; eo quod solas nuptias
violaverint, post annum sine poenitentia reconciliari debebunt. Vid,
Albaspin.' in Loc.
VOL. VI. G

82 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
allowed to participate of the holy mysteries till their term
was expired, and therein their punishment consisted. St.
Basil's canons speak of the same punishment for trigamists-,
or persons that were married a third time.1 They were to be
under penance for five years ; half the time to be hearers
only, and half the time co-standers : that is, they might stay
to hear the prayers of the faithful, but not partake of the
communion with them. So that here were two degrees of
this lesser excommunication ; the one excluding them only
from the eucharist, but allowing them to pray with the faith-
ful ; and the other excluding them from the prayers of the
faithful, and only allowing them to pray with the catechu
mens ; but neither of them expelling such delinquents
totally from the communion of the Church.
Sect. 8.^-3dly, In Expulsion from the Church, called the Greater Excom
munication, total Separation, Anathema, and the like.
The greater excommunication was, when men were
totally expelled the Church, and separated from all com
munion in holy offices with her. Whence in the ancient
canons it is distinguished by the names, of TJaivTEXrje 'A^opto-
/uoc, the total separation, and Anathema, the curse: it
being the greatest curse that could be laid upon man. It
is frequently also signified by the several terms and phrases
•of, ' ' AmipyeerQat Trje ekkXijo-ioc, 'A;roKXEi£o-0(u and "PivreaBai
rfje EkicXjjo^ac, 'Ektoc tlvai 'EKKEpwrEcwat rrjc avvoos,
,A.irup%ai rrjc aicjooao-Ewe. &c. AlljAvhieh 4enote men's being
, wholly cast out of the Churc^ by the mpst formal excom
munication, and debarred not only from the eucharist, but
from the prayers, and hearing the Scriptures in any assem
bly of the Church. This form is elegantly expressed by
^Synesius with all the appendages and consequents of it,
in his excommunication of Andronicus, mentioned before,
in these words : " now that the man is no longer to be ad
monished, but cut off as an incurable member, the Church of
Ptolemais makes this declaration,2 or injunction to all her

1 Basil, can. iv. - Synes. Ep. lviii. p. 199.

CHAP. II.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 83
sister Churches throughout the world : let no Church of
God be open to Andronieus and his accomplices; to Thoas
and his accomplices ; but let every sacred temple and
sanctuary be shut against them. The devil has no part in
paradise; though he .privily creep in, he is driven out again.
I therefore admonish both private men and magistrates,
neither to receive them under their roof, nor to their table ;
and priests more especially, that they neither converse with
them living, nor attend their funerals when dead. And if
any one despise this.Church, as being only a small city, and
receive those that are excommunicated by her, as if there
was no necessity of observing the rules of a poor Church ;
let them know, that they divide the Church by schism,
which Christ would have to be one. And whoever does so,
whether he be Levite, presbyter, or bishop, shall be ranked
in the same class with Andronieus : we will neither give
them the right hand of fellowship, nor eat at the same table
with them ; and much less will we communicate in the
sacred mysteries with them, who chuse to have part with
Andronieus and Thoas." I have recited this whole form,
not only because it is curiously drawn up by an excellent
pen, but also because it opens the way into the further
knowledge of the discipline of the Church. For here we
may observe four things, as concomitants, or immediate con
sequents of this greater excommunication. 1 . That casting
out of the Church, is represented under the image of casting
out of Paradise, and paralleled with it, in the form of ex
communication. 2. That as soon as any one was struck out
of the list of his own Church, notice was given thereof to
the neighbouring Churches, and sometimes to the Churches
over all the world, that all Churches might confirm and
ratify this act of discipline, by refusing to admit such an
one to their communion. Forasmuch as that 3. he that was
legally excommunicated in one Church, was by the laws of
Catholic unity, and rules of right discipline, to be held ex
communicate in all Churches, till he had given just and
reasonable satisfaction : and for any Church to receive such
an one into her communion, was so great an offence, as to
be thought to deserve the same punishment with the offend
ing criminal. 4. That when men were thus excommuni-
2 est

84 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
cated, they were not only excluded from communion in
sacred things, but shunned and avoided in civil conversation
as dangerous and infected persons. All these things are
evident from this single passage of Synesius; but because
the knowledge of the manner of exercising ecclesiastical
discipline, depends upon the truth of them, it will not be
amiss a little more distinctly to explain and confirm them.
First then, 1 observe, that casting out of the Church, is
here represented under the image of Paradise, and
paralleled with it in the form of excommunication. And so
it is said by St. Jerom,1 " that sinners transgress the
covenant of God in the Church, as Adam did in Paradise :
and shew themselves followers of their first father, that they
may be cast out of the Church, as he was out of Paradise."
In like manner St. Austin, speaking of Adam's expulsion
out of Paradise,2 says, " it was a sort of excommunication : :
as now in our PaTadise, that' is, the Church, men by ec
clesiastical discipline are removed from the visible sacra
ments of the altar." And Epiphanius notes the same
custom,3 as more nicely observed by the sect of the
Adamians : for if any one was taken in a crime, they would
not suffer him to come into their assembly, but called him
Adam, the eater of the forbidden fruit, and adjudged him
to be1 expelled, as out of Paradise, that is, their Church. So
that this was a common form or phrase both in the disci
pline of heretics and the Church,

Sect. 9. — This Sort of Eicommunication was commonly notified to
all other Churches.
Secondly, I observe, that as soon as any one was in this
manner excommunicated by any Church, notice thereof was

1 Hieron. Com. in Hoseam. cap. vi. Praevaricati sunt pactum Dei in ec
clesia, sicut Adam pra?varicatus est in paradiso: et imitatores se antiqui
parentis ostendunt, ut quomodo ille de Paradiso, sic. et isti ejiciantur de
ecclesia. s Aug. de Genesi ad Literam. lib. ii. cap. xl. torn. iii.
p. 273. Alienandus erat, tanquam excommunicatus. Sicut etiam in hoc
Paradiso, id est, ecclesia, soient a sacramentis altaris visibilibus homines
disciplinft ecclesiastica removeri. * Epiphan. H»r. Ui.

CHAP. H.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 85
commonly given to other Churches, and sometimes by
circular letters to all eminent Churches over all the world,
that all Churches might confirm and ratify this act of disci
pline, by refusing to admit such an one to their communion.
To this purpose we find a canon in the first Council of
Toledo,1 " that if any powerful man oppress and spoil a
clerk, or a poor man, or one of a religious life, and a
bishop summon him before him, to have a trial, and he re
fuses to obey the summons ; in that case he shall give
notice by letter to all the bishops of the province, and to
as many as possibly he can, that such an one be held ex
communicate, till he obediently submits, and makes resti
tution." This was usually most punctually observed in the
case of heretics and their condemnation. For so the
historians tell us,3 when Alexander, bishop of Alexandria,
had deposed and anathematised Arius, he sent his circular
letters to all Churches, giving an account of his proceedings
against him. And this was the constant practice in all
Councils, to send about their synodieal letters, to signify
what heretics they condemned, that all Churches might be
apprised of their errors, and refuse their communion to the
authors of them. And thus every bishop was careful to
inform his brethren and neighbouring Churches, whenever
he had occasion to use this severe punishment against any
offender. Thus St. Austin having deposed Vietorinus, an
aged subdeaeon, and expelled him the Church, because he
was found hypocritically in private to have propagated the
abominable heresies of the Manichees, writes to Deuterius,
one of his fellow bishops, and tells him,3 he did not think it
sufficient to have used this congruous ecclesiastical severity

1 Con. Tolet. i. can. 11. Si quis de potentibus clericum, aut quemlibet
pauperem, aut religiosuin expoliaverit, et mandaverit eum ad se venire
episcopus ut audiatur, et is contempserit; invicem mox scripta percurrant
per omnes prdvinciae episcopos, et quoscunque adire potuerint, ut excom-
municatus habeatur ipse, donee obediat et reddat aliena.
! Socrat. lib. i. cap. 6. Theod. lib. i. cap. 4. " Aug. Ep. lxxiv,
ad Deuterium. Ejus Actionem sub Clerici specie vehementer exhorrui,
eumque coercitum pellendumde civitate curavi: nee mihi hoc satis fuit, nisi
et tuse sanctitati eum meis Uteris intimarem, ut a clericorum grudu congrue
ecclesiastica severitate dejectus, cavendus omnibus innotescat.

86 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
against him, unless he also gave intimation of what he had
done against him, that every one being well apprised, might
know how to be aware of him.

Sect. 10.— After which he that was excommunicated in one Church, was
held excommunicate in all Churches.
Then, thirdly, whoever was thus excommunicated in one
Church, was held' excommunicate in all Churches. For
such was the perfect harmony and agreement of the Catho
lic Church, that every Church was ready to ratify and
confirm all acts of discipline exercised upon delinquents in
any other Church : so that he, who was legally excommuni
cated in one Church, was by the laws of Catholic unity
and rules of right discipline held excommunicate in all
Churches ; and no Church could or would receive him into
communion, before he had given satisfaction to the Church
whereof he was a member : and to do otherwise, was to
incur the same penalty that was inflicted upon the offending
party. I have given some evidence of this before,1 in
speaking of the unity of the Church: and here I shall a
little further confirm it, to show the exactness of the
ancient Church in the administration of discipline, both
from her laws and practice. Her laws are altogether uni
form upon this point, and run universally in this tenour, that
no person excommunicated in one Church, should be re
eeived in another, except it were by the authority of a legal
synod, to which there lay a just appeal, and which was al
lowed to judge in the case. There are two canons among
those called Apostolical to this purpose. " If any presbyter
or deacon is suspended from communion by his bishop,3 he
shall not be received by any other but the bishop that sus
pended him, except in case the bishop chance to die that
suspended him." And again,3 " If any clergyman or
layman, who is cast out of the Church, be reeeived in
another city without commendatory letters, both he that

' chaP- i- sect. 11. ^ canon. Apost. xxxii. 3 Ibid.
can. xiii.

RHAP. II.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 8-7
received him, and he that is so received, shall be east out of
communion." The Council of Nice is supposed to refer to
these ancient canons, when it says,1 " the rule shall stand
good according to the canon, which says, he that is cast
out by one bishop, shall not be received by another: but
- synods shall be held twice a year to examine, whether any one
person was excommunicated unjustly by the hasty passion,
or contention, or any such irregular commotion of his-
bishop ; and if it appear that he was excommunicated with
reason, he shall be held excommunicate by all other bishops,
till the synod thinks fit to shew him favour." The Council
of Antioch not long after renewed this canon,3 " If any
one is excommunicated by his own bishop, he shall not be
received by any other but the bishop that excommunicated
him, unless upon appeal to the synod he give satisfaction,
and receive another sentence from the synod." The learned
reader may find many other canons to the same purpose in
the Councils of Eliberis,3 and Sardica,* and Milevis,5 and
the first of Aries,6 and Turin,7 and Saragossa,8 which all-
run in the same tenour, and need not here be repeated. It
was by this rule and principle that Cornelius refused to
admit Felicissimus to communion at Rome,9 because he
had been excommunicated by Cyprian at Carthage. And
for the same reason Marcion, as had been noted before,
could find no reception among the Roman clergy, because
he was excommunicated by his own father and had given
no satisfaction to him, as Epiphanius relates the story.10
St. Austin likewise writing to one Quintian,11 who lay under
the censure of his bishop, tells him, that if he came to him,
not communicating with his own bishop, he could not be
received to communion with him. Nay, he had such a re
gard for this rule of discipline, that if a Donatist, that was

1 Con. Nie. can. v. s Con. Antioch. can. vi.
" Con. Eliber. can. liii. * Con. Sardic. can. xiii.
5 Con. Milevit. can. xviii. , 6 Con. Arelat. i. can. 16.
7 Con. Turin, can. iv. et vi. 9 Con. Ca?saraugust. can. v.
D Vid. Cypr. Ep. Iv. al. lix. ad Cornel, p. 136. '» Epiphan.
Ha?r. xlii. n Aug. Ep. exxxv. Si ad nos venires, venerabili
episcopo non coiiiiuuiiicans, nee apud nos posses communicare.

88 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVl.
under censure among his own bishops, pretended to come
over to the' Catholic Church,1 he would not receive him
without first obliging him to do the same penance that he
should have done, had he stayed among them. And he
greatly complains of the Donatist bishops, as dissolving all
the bands of discipline, whilst they encouraged the greatest
criminals, who were under discipline for their ill lives in the
Church, to come, over to them, where they might escape
doing penance, under pretence of receiving a new baptism :
and then, as if they were renewed and sanctified, though
they were really made worse under pretence of new grace,
they could insult the discipline of the Church, from which
they fled, to the highest degree of sacrilegious madness1. He
gives an instance in one, who being used to beat his
mother, and, threatening to kill her, was in danger of falling
under the discipline of the Church for these his insolent
and unnatural cruelties ; to avoid this, he goes over to the
Donatists, who without any more ado rebaptise him in his
madness,2 and put him on the white garment, or albe of
baptism, whilst he was fuming and thirsting after his
mother's blood. So this man, who was meditating murder
against his own mother; was by this means advanced to an
eminent and conspicuous place within the chancel, and set
as a sanctified creature before the eyes of all, who could
not look upon him but with sighing and mourning. The
truth is, this was a very scandalous practice in the
Donatists, done purely to strengthen their party: and no
thing has done more mischief to the Chufch, or more

1 Aug- Ep. cxlix. ad Euseb. Ego istum modum servo, ut quisquis apud
eos propter disciplinam degtadatus ad Catholicam transire voluerit, in
humiliatione pcenitentia? recipiatur, quo et ipsi eum forsitan cogerent, si
apud eos manere voluisset. Ab eis vero considera, qua?so re, quam execra-
biliter fiat, ut quos male viventes ecclesiastica disciplina corripimus, per-
suadeatur eis ut ad alterum lavacrum veniant — deinde quasi renovati et quasi
sanctificati, disciplinie, quam ferre non potuerunt, deteriores facti sub
specie nova? gratia?, sacrilegio novifurorisinsultent.
2 Aug. Ep. clxviii. ad eundem. Transit ad partem Donati, rebaptizatur
furens, et in maternum sanguinem fremens albis vestibus candidatur. Con-
stituitur intra cancellos eminens et conspicuus, et omnium gementium oculis
matricidii meditator tanquam renovatus opponitur.

CHAP. 1I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 89
enervated the -power of ecclesiastical discipline, than the
receiving of scandalous sinners, who fly from justice and
the censures of the Church, into other communions, and
their protecting and even caressing them as saints, who
ought to have been punished as the greatest criminals.
Upon this account the Church went as far as possibly she
could, in making severe laws to discourage this practice ;
inflicting the same penalty upon any one that received an
excommunicate person into public or private communion,
as the excommunicated person himself was liable to. Thus
in the Council of Antioch one canon says,1 " If any bishop,
presbyter, or deacon communicate with an excommunicated
person, he himself shall be excommunicated, as one that
confounds the order of the Church." Another,3 " If any
bishop receives a presbyter or deacon, deposed for contu
macy by his own bishop, he shall be censured by a synod,
as one that dissolves the laws of the Church." And a
third canon says,3 " If any bishop deposed by a synod, or
presbyter or deacon deposed by their own bishop, presume
to officiate in any part of divine service; they shall not
only be incapable of being restored, but all that communi
cate with them shall be cast out of the Church ; especially
if they do so, after they know that sentence was pronounced
against them." In like manner the first Council of Orange,*
" If any bishop presumes to communicate with one that is
excommunicate, knowing him to be so, without his being
reconciled to the bishop by whom he was excommunicated,
he shall be treated as a guilty person." The second Council
of Carthage says more expressly,5 " That a bishop, presby
ter, or deacon, who receives those into communion, who
were deservedly cast out of the Church for their crimes,
shall be held guilty of the same crimes with them." The

' Con. Antioch. can. ii. s Ibid. can. iv.
3 Ibid. can,, v. see also can. i.
* Con. Arausican. can. xi. Placuit in reatum venire episcopum, qui ad-
monitus de exoommunicatione cujusquam, sine reconciliatione ejus qui eum
excommunicavit, ei communicare praesumpserit. 5 Con. Carth. ii.
can, 7. Placuit ut qui merito facinorum suorum ab ecclesia pulsi sunt, si
ab aliquo episcopo, vel presbytero, vel clerico fuerint in coinmunionem
suscepti, etiain ipse pari cum eis crimine teneatur obnoxius.

90 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
fourth Cou-ncil of Carthage declares universally,1 " who
ever he be, clergyman or layman, that communicates with
an excommunicate person, shall himself be excommuni
cated." St. Basil's words are very remarkable to an
offender whom he threatened to excommunicate,3 " Thou
shalt be an anathema to all the people, and whoever
receives thee, shall be excommunicate in all Churches."
The like may be read in the Apostolical Canons,3 to which
the ancient Councils so often refer as the standing rule of
discipline, " If any clergyman ot layman, who is cast out
of the Church, be received in another city without com
mendatory letters, both he that receives him, and he that is
so received, shall be cast out of communion." Which
answers an objection that might be raised in the case, viz.
what if a bishop knew not by any formal intimation that
such or such a person was excommunicate, and so through
ignorance received him 1 To this it is here answered, that
this did not excuse him, because he ought by the rule of
Catholic commerce to receive no stranger to communion,
that did not bring commendatory letters, or testimonials,
from his own bishop, that he was in the communion of the
Church. If any travelled without these, he was to be sus
pected as an excommunicated person, and accordingly
treated as one under censure. But what, if a person was
unjustly excommunicated by his own bishop? might not
another bishop do him justice, by relaxing his unlawful
bonds, and admit him to communion ? I answer, no : for
in this case the Church provided another more proper
remedy, that every man should have liberty to appeal from
the sentence of his own bishop to a provincial synod, which
was by the canons of Nice,* and others appointed to be
held twice a year for this very purpose, that if any one was

Con. Carth. iv. can. 73. Qui communicaverit vel oraverit cum excom
municato, sive clericus, sive laicus, excommunicetur.
' Basil, can. Ixxxix. s Canon. Apost. can. xiii. Vid. Isidor
Pelus. lib. iii. ep. 259. « Vid. Con. Nie. can. v. Con!
Antioch. can. vi. Sardic. c. xvii. Carthag. ii. can. 8. et 10. Con. Milevit.
can. xxii. Carthag. iii. can. 8. Vasensc. u. v. Veneticum. i-. ix. Aug
Ep. exxxvi. &c.

CHAP. Il.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 91
aggrieved by the censure of his own bishop, he might have
his cause heard over again in a provincial synod ; from
which there lay no further appeal to any single bishop, no,
not even to the bishop of Rome, who most pretended to it;
but all such causes were to be heard and determined in the
province where they arose, to obviate fraud and surrep
titious communion, and put an end to all strife and con
tention, as has been shewn more fully in the foregoing
chapter, sect. 14. out of the debate between the bishops of
Rome and the African Churches. These were the rules
then generally observed throughout the whole Catholic
Church, with respect to the rejection of excommunicate
persons from the communion of all Churches. And by
these rules the unity of the Catholic Church was duly main
tained, and discipline for the most part kept up in its true
vigour and glory.
Sect. 11. — And avoided also in Civil Commerce and outward Conversation
and allowed no Memorial after Death.
But fourthly, Synesius in the forementioned form of ex
communication, not only speaks of denying men communion
in sacred things, but also in civil commerce and external
conversation: no one was to receive excommunicated per
sons into their houses, nor eat at the same table with them ;
they were not to converse with them familiarly, whilst
living; nor perform the funeral obsequies for them, when
dead, after the solemn rites and manners that were used to
ward other Christians. These directions were drawn up
upon the model of those rules of the Apostles, which forbad
Christians to give any countenance to notorious offenders,
continuing impenitent, even in ordinary conversation. As
that of St. Paul, 1 Cor. v. 11. "I have written unto you
not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother,
be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a
drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to
eat." And again, Rom. xvi. 17. " Mark them which
cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which
ye have learned, and avoid them." And 2 Thess. iii. 14.
" If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that

92 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
man, and have no company with him, that he may be
ashamed." And that of St. John, " If there come any
unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into
your house, neither bid him, God speed. For he that biddeth
him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds." 2 John, x.
11. In conformity to these rules, and the reasons here as
signed for the observation of them, the Ancients made
strict laws to forbid all familiar intercourse with excom
municated persons in ordinary conversation, unless some
absolute necessity, or some greater and more obliging moral
consideration required them to do otherwise. The first
Council of Toledo has four or five canons to this pur
pose.1 It will be sufficient to recite the first of them, which
is in these words : " If any layman is excommunicated, let
no clerk or religious person come near him or his- house.
In like manner if a clergyman is excommunicated, let the
clergy„avoid him. And if any is found to converse or eat
with him, let him also be excommunicated." The second
Council of Aries,3 orders a suspended bishop to be excluded
not only from the conversation and table of the clergy, but
of all the people likewise. And many other such canons
occur in the Councils of Vanues,3 and the first of Tours,*
and the first of Orleance,5 excluding excommunicate per
sons from all entertainments of the faithful. The Apostoli
cal Canons6 forbid any one to communicate in prayer so
much as in a private house with excommunicate persons
under the same penalty of excommunication. And if they
happened to die in professed rebellion and contempt of
penance, then they were treated as all other contemners and
despisers of holy ordinances were, by being denied the

1 Con. Tolet. i. can. 15. Si quis laicus abstinetur, ad hunc vel ad
domum ejus, clericoruin vel religiosorum nullus accedat. Similiter et clericus,
si abstinetur, a clericis devitetur. Si quis cum illo colloqui aut convivari
fuerit deprehensus, etiam ipse abstineatur. Vid. can. 7. 16. et. 18. Ibid.
2 Con. Arelat. ii. can. 30. Suspensum episcopum non solum a clericoruin,
sed etiam a totius populi colloquio atque convivio placuit excludi.
8 Con. Veneticum, can. iii. A conviviis fidelium submovendos. Con.
Ilerden. c. iv. * Con. Turon. i. can. 8. A convivio fidelium
extraneus habeatur. * Con. Aurel. i. can. 3, 5, 13. Con,
Carthag. iv. can. 70. • Canon Apost. can. xi.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 93
honour and benefit of Christian burial. No solemnity of
psalmody or prayers was used at their funeral : nor were
they ever to be mentioned among the faithful out of the
Diptychs, or holy books of the Church, according to
custom in the prayers at the altar. This is evident, not only
from what is said by Synesius, but from the whole tenour of
ecclesiastical discipline; which excludes all that die in
professed rebellion and contempt from the privilege of
Christian burial, such as catechumens dying in wilful neg
lect of baptism, and those that laid violent hands upon
themselves, and such like, as all dying in impenitency and
a desperate condition.1 And it is further evident from that
very exception, which we have observed before3 to be made
in favour of such humble penitents, as modestly submitted
to the discipline of the Church, and were labouring
earnestly to obtain a re-admission, but were snatched away
by sudden death, before they could obtain the formality of
an absolution : in this case, as I shewed, the canons3 allow
ed their oblations to be received, and their funeral obsequies
to be celebrated after the usual solemnity and manner of
the Church : which exception supposes, that all the rest,
who died refractory and impenitent, were wholly denied
these privileges, as a just consequence of their censures.
Not to mention now the custom of erasing the names of
excommunicate persons out of the Diptychs, or sacred
registers of the Church, which was the immediate effect of
excommunication, and excluded them from all the privileges
of any future memorial* or commemoration, till they were
restored again. I will not stand now to dispute, whether
this custom took its original from the practice of the Jewish
synagogue ; or whether our Saviour alluded to that practice
as some learned men think,5 when he said to his disciples,
Luke vi. 22. " Blessed are ye, when they shall separate, or
excommunicate, you out of the synagogue, and cast out,
or expunge, your names out of the holy books:" certain it

1 Vid. Con. Bracar. i. can. 34, et 35. * Chap. i. sect. 7.
8 Vid. Con. Vasense. ii. can. ii. * Vid. Evagrium. lib. iii.
cap. 24. * Dodwel. Dissert, v. in Cyprian, n. 18.

94 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
is, that as this erasing or expunging the names of excom
municate persons out of the Diptychs was used in tho
Christian Church, it always implied the denial of communion
to them even after death : they could neither have a Chris
tian burial, nor a Christian commemoration, among those
that were departed in the true faith and unity of the Church;
but were excluded, both living and dying, from all society
both sacred and civil, as the immediate effect and conse
quence either of a voluntary and chosen, or a judicial and
.penal excommunication.
For to shew that these were not mere empty and inef
fective laws, we may often observe them in a remarkable
manner put in practice. Irenseus1 tells us from those who
had it from the mouth of Polycarp, that when he once oc
casionally accompanied St. John into a bath at Ephesus,
and they there found Cerinthus, the heretic, St. John imme
diately cried out to Polycarp, Let us fly hence, lest the bath
should fall, in which Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is.
Eusebius and Theodoret3 both mention the same story out
of Irenseus ; and Epiphanius also3 relates it at large, only
with this difference, that it was Ebion, the heretic, to whom,
by the guidance of the Spirit, he shewed this aversion, for
a memorial and example to future ages. Whence Baronius
conjectures,* both those heretics might be present, and that
the saying had equal relation to them both. Irenseus in the
same place adds this further concerning Polycarp, that hap
pening once to meet Marcion, the heretic, and Marcion
asking him whether he did not know him, he replied, Yes,
I know thee to be the first-born of Satan. So cautious,
says Irenseus, were the Apostles and their disciples, " not
to communicate so much as in word, prj jtwxpi AoV8 wivta-
viiv, with the perverters of truth" according to that of
St. Paul, " A man that is an heretic after the first and
second admonition reject, knowing that such an one is
subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." In

„ *ren- hb\"1- caP" *• * Euseb. lib. iv. cap. 14. Theod. de
Fabul. Heretic, lib. ii. cap. 7, » Epiph. Ha?reS. xxx. Ebionit. n. 24.
Baron.an.lxxiv.n.9. Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. Voce, AlpeTlKbc. torn. i.
¦ p ¦ I So

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 95
like manner St. Ambrose observes of a certain Christian
judge, in the time of Julian, that having condemned one of
his brethren for demolishing an altar, no one would vouch
safe to associate with him,1 no one would speak to him or
salute him. And St. Basil writing to Athanasius concern
ing a certain governor of Libya,2 whom Athanasius had ex
communicated for his immoralities, and according to custom
had given notice of it to Basil, tells him, they would all
avoid him, and have no communion with him in fire, of
water, or house, that is, in the common ways of ordinary con
versation. A great many other instances of the like kind
might be given, but I shall only add that of Monieha, St.
Austin's mother, toward her son, whilst he continued a
Manichee. St. Austin himself tells us,3 that she so detested
the blasphemies of his error, and had such an aversion to
him upon the account of them, that she would not admit
him to eat with her at the same table in her own house.
This was according to the discipline then practised in the
Church, to deny sinners not only communion in sacred
things, but also in the civil commerce of ordinary conversa
tion. Sect. 12.— The Grounds and Reasons of this Practice.
Now all this was done for very wise ends and reasons of
Christian prudence and charity. 1. To make sinners asha
med, and by that shame to bringthem to repentance. This is
the reason given by the Apostle, " Note that man, and have
no company with him, that he may be ashamed." 3. To
terrify others by their example. Both these reasons are
assigned by the canon of the Council of Tours, which
orders relapsing sinners to be- excluded both from the come
munion of the Church* and the entertainments of the faithful,
that the shame and confusion arising from such treatment
1 Ambros. Ep. xxix. ad Theodos. Nemo ilium congressu, nemo ilium
unquam osculo dignum putavit. 2 Basil. Ep. xlvii.
8 Aug. Confess, lib. iii. cap. 11. Nolle, habere secum eandem mensam in
domo, aversans et detestans blasphemias erroris mei. Vid. Ser. 215. de
Tempore. * Con. Turon. i. can. 8. A communione ecclesia?, vel
& convivio fidelium extraneus habeatur, quo faoilius et ipse compunctionem
per hanc confusionein aecipiat, et alii ejus terreantur exemplo.

96 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
miffht brine- them to compunction, and terrify others by
their example. 3. A third reason was the fear of partaking
in other men's sins ; if by their society they seemed to shew
any countenance to them, it would be an hardening them in
their iniquity, and involve such as contributed thereto, in the
same guilt with the criminals themselves. " Iheretore
says St. Cyprian,1 " we ought to withdraw from sinners, and
even fly from them, lest if a man join himself to those that
walk disorderly, and go in the paths of error and wicked
ness, he himself also be held in the guilt of the same
crimes." For this reason, writing to the people of Leon
and Astorga, in Spain, where two bishops, Basilides and
Martial, had been deposed for lapsing into idolatry, who
afterwards made an attempt to draw in the people to accept
them again for their bishops, after others had regularly by
the discipline of the Church been ordained in their room,
he tells them,3 " they should not flatter themselves, as if
they were free from partaking in sin, if they communicated
with a sinful bishop, and gave their consent to the unlawful
and unjust establishment of him in his bishopric, since the
divine judgment had threatened and said by the Prophet
Hosea, ' Their sacrifices shall be unto thech as the bread of
mourners : all that eat thereof, shall be polluted :' teaching
and shewing us, that all men are bound over unto sin, who
are defiled with the sacrifice of a profane and unjust
priest." Which we find also to be declared in the Book of
Numbers, when Korah, Dathan, and Abiram assumed to
themselves the power of offering sacrifice in opposition to
Aaron the priest. There the Lord commanded the people
by Moses to separate themselves from them, lest if they
were joined with those wicked men, they should be smitten
in their wickedness. " Depart," says he, " from the tents
of these hardened men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye
1 Cypr. de Unit. Eccle*. p. 119. Recedendum est a delinquentibus, vel
imo fugiendum, ne dum quis male ambulantibus jungitur, et per itinera erro-
ris et criminis graditur, pari crimine et ipse teneatur.
2 Cypr. Ep. lxviii. al. 67. ad Plebem Legionis et Asturicse, p. 171. Nee
sibi plebs blandiatur, quasi immunis esse a contagio delicti possit, cum
sacerdote peccatore communicans, et ad injustum atque illicitum propositi
sui episcopatum consensum suum comraodans, &c.

CHAP. II.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 97
be consumed in all their sins." 4. A fourth reason was, to
avoid contagion and infection. For conversing with profane
men is endangering a man's own virtue : " Evil communi
cations corrupt good manners." An infected member often
destroys the whole body. Therefore as vile and notorious
sinners were for this reason cut off from the body of the
Church : so for the same reason all men were afterwards to
avoid their society, for fear the poison of their 'infamous
conversation should infect their morals, and diffuse it sei
into their minds by any artful conveyance of cunning crafti
ness, or the natural influence of bad example. "For wicked
men speak with their feet, and teach with their fingers," as
the Wise Man elegantly words it: their actions, as well as
their discourses, are of a malignant influence, and are apt
to leave ill tinctures and impressions upon the minds of
others, so that a man cannot ordinarily converse with them
without danger of infection. Therefore, says Cyprian,1
" avoid such men, and drive away their pernicious commu
nications both from your conversation and your ears, as the
contagion of death. For thus it is written, ' Hedge about
thine ears with thorns, and hearken not to an evil tongue.'
And again, ' Evil communications corrupt good manners.'
Our Lord teaches and admonishes us to withdraw from such,
saying, ' They are blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind
lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch." 5. But
admitting' some could converse with such without danger to
themselves, they could not without manifest danger to
others, who are weak and apt to be emboldened to follow
the example of the strong to their apparent ruin and destruc
tion. For these and the like reasons, whenever the Church
cast any notorious offenders wholly out of her communion,
she prohibited all others from conversing with them, both
in kindness to the sinners and to the righteous, lest the one
should be hardened in their impenitency, and the other cor
rupted by the spreading contagion and infection.

1 Cypr. de Unit. Eccles. p. 115. Vitate, qua?so vos, ejusmodi homines,
et a. latere atque auribus vestris perniciosa colloquia, velut contagium mor
tis arcete, &e.
VOL. VI. H

98 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,

Sect. 13.— No Donations or Oblations allowed to be received from excom
municate Persons.
It is further observable, that as an indication of the
Church's abhorrence of excommunicate persons, she allowed
no gifts or oblations to be received from them ; because
that might have been interpreted retaining them still in some
measure in her communion, and involving herself in the
guilt of filthy lucre. Therefore she never admitted any one
to make oblations, but such as were in full communion with
her, and might lawfully partake of the sacrifice of the altar ;
as I have had occasion to shew more fully in another
place.1 Here I only note it again as a thing most remarka
ble, that she had such an aversion to any thing that apper
tained to them, that she would not so much as retain those
gifts, which any such persons had freely offered, whilst they
were in communion with her. This we learn from Tertullian,
who, speaking of the expulsion of Valentinus and Marcion
for their heresies at Rome, says, they were cast out once
and again,2 and particularly MaTcion with his , two hundred
sestertia, which he had brought into the Church.
Sect. 14. — No one to marry with excommunicate Heretics, or receive their
Eulogiee, or read their Books ; but burn them.
There are several other instances of their aversion to
heretics in particular, when once the censures of the Church
were passed upon them. The Council of Laodioea not only
forbids all men to frequent their cemeteries and meetings,3
held at the monuments of their pretended martyrs, or any
where to pray with them ; but also to receive any presents
under the name of Eulogies from them ;* because this was
in some sort to communicate with them ; these Eulogice, or
sanctified loaves, being one way of testifying men's commu-

1 Book xv. chap. ii. s Tertul. de Prescript, adv. Hteretic.
cap. xxx. Semel et iterum ejecti, Marcion quidem cum ducentis sestertiis'
suis, qua? ecclesia? intulerat, &c. » Vid. Con. Laodic. can. ix.
xxxiii. et xxxiv. « Ibid. can. xxxii. Ov tu alperiKdv tuXoyiac
\afif}avci.v. &c.

CHAP. H.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 99
nion one with another. The same Council also forbids all
members of the Church to enter into communion with here
tics,1 by giving their sons or daughters in marriage to them ;
neither are they allowed to take the sons or daughters of
heretics in marriage to themselves, unless they promise to
become Christians.9 Where we may observe also, that the}-
did not allow heretics, after they had broken the faith and
communion of the Church, absolutely speaking, so much as
the name of Christians. Other laws strictly prohibit men to
read the books of heretics, as imagining that the poison of
their errors was in a great measure dispersed and conveyed
by them. Socrates3 has recorded a letter of Constantino
the Great, wherein he orders the Arians to be branded and
stigmatised with the name of Porphyrians, and their books
to be burnt, and makes it death for any one to conceal
them and save them from the flames. And there are two
laws now extant in the Theodosian Code, wherein the very
same things are enjoined under very severe penalties. The
first is a law made by Arcadius and Honorius against the
Eunomians, a noted branch of the Arian heresy, wherein
their books* are ordered to be sought after with a very dili
gent search, and to be burnt in the sight of the judges. And
if any one was convicted of fraudulent hiding, and not dis
covering them, he should be punished with death, as a re
tainer and concealer of pernicious and magical books, con
taining the institutions of all manner of wickedness. The
other law was made by Theodosius Junior against the
Nestorians, where he refers to the former law of Constantine,
and orders the followers of Nestorius to be called Simo-
nians, for their imitating the portentous superstitions of
Simon Magus ; as Constantine had appointed the Arians to
be called Porphyrians, from Porphyry the heathen. Then
he orders their books, written against the Catholic faith andN
the Council of Ephesus, to be publicly burnt,* forbidding

1 Vid. Con. Laodic. can. x. M»; tiiv rac rijc iKKknaiag iSiafopotc trpoc
yap, a koivuiv'mv esvvaitmv rot kavrdv iraitla alperweotc. s Ibid.
can. xxxi. Vid. Con. Eliberit. can. xvi. * Socrat. lib. i. cap. 9.
* Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 5. de Ha?retic. leg. xxxiv. Codices sane eorum,
H 2

100 THE ANT1QCITIFS OF THE [BOOK XVT.
anv one to have, read, or transcribe them, under pain of con
fiscation. This custom of burning heretical books, is con
firmed by many other laws ; of which more hereafter, when
we come to speak of the punishment of heretics in particu
lar. Here I observe, that the prohibition of reading or
retaining them was so limited by the Church, as to allow
bishops to read them, when time and necessity so required,1
in order to confute them. For the fourth Council of
Carthage,6 which forbids them universally the reading of
heathen authors, allows the reading of heretical books,
with this limitation and restriction. And therefore the re
taining them in this ease, was not to be interpreted that
fraudulent retaining and concealment, which the imperial
laws condemned under the penalties of confiscation and
death. Gothofred observes one thing further upon tbe use
fulness and effect of these laws, which is fit to be remarked,3
that the terror of them made heretics very cautious how
they dispersed their books, and others as cautious how
they retained or concealed them : insomuch that when St.
Basil was about to confute the first book of Eunomius, he
had a hard matter to compass it, as Photius reports,* the
Eunomians were so industrious in concealing it. And
when Eunomius had written his latter books in answer to
Basil, he durst not publish them, but only among his confe
derates, in St. Basil's life time, for fear of Basil ; and after
his death,5 durst only trust them in the hands of his friends,
for fear of, the penalties which the laws had laid upon them;
though Philostorgius,6 the Arian historian, makes bold
after his manner, to give a different relation of it.

scelerum omnium doctrinam ac materiara continentes, summit sagacitate moX
qua?ri, ac prodi, exerta auctoritate mandamus, sub aspectibus eorum judicau-
tuin incendio mox cremandos. Ex quibus si quis forte aliquid qualibet oc
casione, vel fraude occultasse, necprodidisse convincitur, sciat se, velut nox-
ioruin codicum, et maleficii crimine conscriptorum, retentorem, capite esse
plecteudum. ' (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v. leg. 66. et in Actis
Con. Ephes. Par. iii. cap. 46. 2 Con. Carthag. iv. can. 16. U'
episcopus gentilium libros non legat ; ha?reticorum autem pro necessitate et
tempore. See book vi. chap. iii. sect. 4. where this question is more fully
handled. 3 Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v.
leg. 34. * Phot. Cod. 137. 6 Id. Cod. 138.
' Philostorg. lib. viii. cap. 12.

CHAP. II.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 101

Sect. 15 — What "meant by Delivering unto Satan.
There are two or three things more, relating to tho man
ner, and form, and effects of excommunication, which have
something of difficulty in them, and therefore it will be pro
per to give them a little explication here. The first diffi
culty arises from the Apostle's order, given to the Corin
thians, how to proceed against the incestuous person, who
had married his father's wife, 1 Cor. v. 5. where he enjoins
them, in the name, and with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ
to " deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruction of
the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the
Lord Jesus." So again, 1 Tim. i. 20. speaking of Hyme-
naeus and Philetus, he says, " Whom I have delivered
unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."
There -are two famous expositions of these passa ges. Bi"
shop Beveridge,1 and Estius,2 after Balzamon and Zonaras,
with many other modern interpreters, whom Estius men
tions, think that " delivering unto Satan," is but another
expression for excommunication, and the spiritual effects
consequent to it, that is, the punishment of the soul, and
not of the body. For when men are cast out of the society
of the faithful, which is the Church of Christ, they are there
by deprived of all the benefits that are proper and peculiar
to that society ; as the common prayers of the Church, the
public use of the word or doctrine, the participation of
the sacrament, the pastoral care of those that preside over
them, and the special grace of divine protection ; and so
remain exposed to the tyranny and incursions of Satan,
whose kingdom is without the Church. And thus far they
allow, that every excommunicated person was delivered
unto Satan, but not for any corporal vexation or punishment
to be inflicted on him. Others are of opinion, that besides
this spiritual punishment naturally consequent to excommu
nication, there was in the Apostles' days another conse-

1 Beverig. Not. in Can. Apost. x. 2 Estius in 1 Cor. v. 5.
3 Balsam, et Zonar. in Basil, can. 7.

102 THE ANTIQUITIES OP THE [BOOK XV
quent of it, which was corporal power and possession, or
the infliction of bodily vexations and torments by the minis
try of Satan on those who were delivered unto him. Dr.
Hammond, and Grotius, and Lightfoot, are the great sup
porters of this opinion among the Moderns, and they have
almost the general concurrence of the ancient interpreters
on their side ; which Estius does not much deny, though he
chose to follow Peter Lombard and Aquinas, and the ordi
nary gloss against them. He owns St. Chrysostom and
the Greeks were wholly of this opinion; and among
the Latins, St. Ambrose and Pacian ; and St. Austin also,
though not very positive, he thinks, in his assertion. But
he is mistaken ; for St. Austin was clearly of this opinion.
He does not say indeed, it was death, which the Apostle
inflicted upon the Corinthian, as St. Peter did upon Ananias
and Sapphira ; but he says expressly, it was some punish
ment,1 inflicted on him by the ministry of Satan. Which
he distinguishes from a common excommunication, by the
name of Flagellum Domini, the scourge of the Lord ; which
he says, the Apostle used upon some special occasions,
when there was no way to cure an epidemical disease, or
correct a single sinner, buoyed up and favoured by the
multitude,8 but only by interceding with God to take the
matter into his own hand, and use the severe mercy of his
own divine discipline upon them, when the contagion of
sin had invaded a multitude ; in which case it were not
only in vain to advise men to separate from sinners, but
pernicious and sacrilegious ; because such counsels in such a
state of affairs would be thought impious andjproud, and more

1 Aug. de Sermone Dom. in Monte, lib. i. cap. 20. Etsi nolunt hie
mortem intelligere, quod fortasse incertum est, quamlibet vindictam per
Satanam factam ab Apostolo fateantur. 3 Aug. Epist. Parmen.
lib. iii. cap. 2. Quid aliud dicit hie, Non parcam : nisi quod superius ait,
Et lugeam multos: ut luctus ejus impetraret flagellum a Domino, quo illi
corriperentur, qui jam propter multitudinem non poterant ita corripi, utab
eorum conjunctione se ca?teri continerent, et eos erubescere facerent?—
Et revera si contagio peccandi multitudinem invaserit, divina? discipline
severa misericordia necessaria est : nam consilia separationis et inania sunt
et perniciosa atque sacrilega ; quia et impia et superba fiunt, et plus pertur-
bant infirmos bonos, quam corrigant animosos malos.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 103
tend to disturb good men that were weak, than correct the
stubbornness and animosity of the evil. In this sense he
there also in like manner interprets two other passages of
the Apostle, 2 Cor. xii. 21. "Lest when I come again, my
God will humble me among you, and I shall bewail many
which have sinned already, and have not repented of the
uncleanness, and lasciviousness, and fornication, which they
have committed." And 2 Cor. xii. 1,2. " This is the
third time I am coming to you : in the mouth of two or three
witnesses shall every word be established. I foretold you
before, and foretell you as if I were present the second
time, and being absent, I now write to them which hereto
fore have sinned, and to all other, that if I come again,
I will not spare ; since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking
in me." Here, he says, the Apostle does not threaten them
with that fpunishment, which should make others abstain
from their society, but by his prayers and tears to turn
them over,1 to the divine scourge to eorrect them ; and that
this was the power of Christ speaking in him. Where no
thing can be plainer, than that St. Austin distinguishes this
as an extraordinary power from the ordinary power of ex
communication ; which the Apostle had in reserve for such
difficult cases, where the ordinary power of excommunica
tion, by reason of the multitude or confederacy of sinners,
would not by its own bare virtue prove effectual. So that
according to him, this power of delivering unto Satan, was
something superior to that ordinary power of casting men
out of the Church, and the society of the faithful. St. Am
brose was of the same mind with St. Austin : for explaining
how the incestuous man was punished, he says,3 " As the
Lord gave the devil no power over the soul of holy Job,
but only permitted him to afflict his body ; so this man was
delivered to Satan." And St. Jerome says,3 " the Apostle

1 Aug. Epist. Parmen. lib. iii. cap. 3. Per luctum suum potius eos' diyino
flagello coercendos minans, quam per illam correptionera, ut ca?teri ab eorum
conjunctione se contineant. 2 Ambros. de Pcenit. lib. i.
cap. 12. Sicut Dominus in animam sancti Job potestatem non dedit, sed in
carnem ejus permisit licentiam, ita et hie traditur Satana?. s Hie-
ron. Com. in Gal. v. Pra?cepit eum tradi poenitentia?, in interitura etvexa-
tionem carnis, perjejunia et a?grotationes, ut spiritus salvus fiat.

104 THE ANTIQUITIES OI? THE [BOOK XVt.
commanded him to be put under penance for the destruction
and vexation of the flesh by fasting and sickness, that his
spirit might be saved." And so Pacianus,1 by the destruc
tion of the flesh, understands tribulation and infirmities of
the body. The Author of the Short Notes,2 under the
name of St. Jerom, says the same. So likewise Cassian/
to Whom Estius himself adds Primasius, and Haimo. St.
Chrysostom among the Greeks, gives the same sense of the
Apostle's words. He says, " the Apostle delivered the
Corinthian offender to Satan, as to a schoolmaster, for the
destruction of the flesh. As it happened to holy Job, but
not for the same cause: for there it was done to make his
crown of glory more illustrious ; but here the man only
gains remission of his . sins : that Satan might torture him
with some cruel ulcer, or other disease." And he observes
how the Apostle says elsewhere, that such diseases were
sometimes inflicted on sinners immediately by the hand of
God : when we suffer such things, we are judged of the
Lord: but here he delivers him to Satan, the more sensibly
to touch and affect him.* He gives the same exposition of
the Apostle's words concerning Hymenseus and Philetus,
" Whom 1 have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not
to blaspheme." " As executioners," says he, " though they
be very wicked themselves, are made instruments5 of chas
tising others : so here it is with the wicked devils. Job
was thus delivered to Satan, not for his sins, but to obtain
the greater glory." He adds, " that God often did this im
mediately by his own power, without the intervention of any
human ministry. For many times the priests know not who
are sinners, or who are unworthy partakers of the holy mys
teries : therefore God takes the judgment into his own
hands, and delivers them unto Satan. For when diseases,
or misfortunes, or sorrows, or calamities, or any thing of
the like kind befalls men, it is for this reason, as St. Paul also

1 Pacian. Ep. iii. ad. Sempronian. Bibl. Patr. torn. iii. p. 66. Ad
solius carnis interitum, tentationes scilicet, carnis angustias, detrimeuta
membrorum. 2 Hieron. Com. in 1 Cor. v. 5,. 3 Cassian.
Collat. vii. cap. 25,26,27,28. * Chrys. Horn. XV. iu
Cor. p. 451. 5 Horn. vi. in 1 Tim. p. 1547.

CHAP. Il.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 106
intimates, saying, " For this cause many are sick and weak
among you, and many sleep." Theodoret follows Chry
sostom in his exposition : for speaking rof Hymeneeus and
Alexander, he says,1 " the Apostle delivered them to Satan,
as to a cruel executioner ; for being separated from the body
of the Church, and left destitute of divine grace, they were
cruelly tormented by the adversary, falling into diseases,
and sufferings, and other evils and calamities, which the
devil is wont to inflict upon men." Now this being the
general sense of the Ancients, both Greek and Latin, that
this was an extraordinary apostolical power, distinct from
the ordinary power of excommunication ; we do not find
that they ordinarily made use of this phrase, " Delivering
unto Satan," in any of their forms of excommunication ; as
being sensible, that the Church, after the power of mira
cles was ceased, had no pretence to the power of inflicting
bodily diseases, as the Apostles had, upon excommunicate
persons by the ministry of Satan. Cassian indeed tells us,2
that he knew several holy men, that were corporally deli
vered to Satan, and to great infirmities, for small offences.
But that was by the immediate hand of God, and his chas
tisements, and not by the censures of the Church, which
did not excommunicate holy men, nor any others, for small
offences. The author of the Life of St. Ambrose,3 says
also, that he having to deal with a very flagitious sinner said,
he ought to be delivered to Satan for the destructiou of the
flesh, that no one may dare to commit such things for the
future. And he had no sooner spoken the word, but imme
diately, the very same moment, an unclean spirit seized the
man, and began to tear him. But this, if true, was a sin
gular instance of apostolical and miraculous power yet
remaining in St. Ambrose, and there is scarce a parallel in-

1 Theod. in 1 Tim. i. 20. 2 Cassian. Collat. vii. cap. 25.
Corporaliter traditos Satana?, vel infirmitatibus magnis, etiam viros sanctos
novimus, pro levissimis quibusque delictis, &c. s Paulin.
Vit.Ambros. Cum deprehendisset auctorem tanti flagitii, ait, Oportet ilium
tradi Satana? in interitum carnis, ne talia aliquis in posterum audeat admit-
tere. Quem eodem momento, cum adhuc sermo esset in ore sacerdotis
sancti, spiritus iinmundus correptuin discerpere coepit.

106 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
stance to be met with in all the history of the Church.
The canons of old verv rarely used this phrase. St. Basil
mentions it once,1 and Gratian cites an Epistle of Pope
Pelagius,8 where it is said, " By the example of apostolical
authority, we have learned to deliver unto Satan erring spi
rits, which draw others into error, that they may learn not
to blaspheme." But in these places it seems to mean no
more than excommunication or expulsion out of the Church,
which is the spiritual delivering up to Satan, without any
regard to bodily torture. For all men are sensible, that
since the Apostles' days there was no such power generally
granted to the ministers of the Church. And for this rea
son, Peter de Moulin tells us,3 the reformed Church of
France in their national synod of Alez, at which he him
self assisted as moderator, Anno 1620, made an order, that
in excommunication, no one should use the form of " De
livering unto Satan," Neither should the censure of
Anathema Maranatha be pronounced against any man;
forasmuch as no one ought to use that form, but he that
knows the secrets of reprobation, and can tell by the reve
lation of God's Spirit, whether the person excommunicated
has sinned against the Holy Ghost, or the sin unto death,
that is, with such impeniteney as will be final, and continue
unto death ; for which, St. John says, ,rio one ought to
pray. The prohibition here of the use of the form Ana
thema Maranatha, leads us to another inquiry, — what the
Ancients understood by it % and whether they used it at
any time as a form of excommunication?
Sect. 16. — What meant by Anathema Maranatha, and whether any such
forms of Excommunication were In Use in the Ancient Church.
Anathema is a word that occurs frequently in the ancient
canons, and the condemnation of all heretics. The Council

1 Basil, can. vii. a Pelag. ap.Grat. Caus. xxiv.
qua?st iii. cap. 13. Apostolica? auctoritatis exemplo, errantium, etin errorem
mittentium spiritus tradendos esse Satana?, ut blasphemare dediscant.
* Molina?i Vates, seu De onisinalisque Prophetis. lib. ii. cap. xi. p. 1H'-

CHAP. II. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 107
of Gangra closes every one of its canons with the words,
"'Ava&Ejua izw, Let him be anathema, or accursed," that is,
separated from the communion of the Church, and its pri-
viliges, and from the favour of God, without repentance,
that goes against the tenour of the thing there decreed.
And this is the style of most other Councils, grounded
upon that form of St. Paul, " If we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be Anathema or accur
sed." But the adding of Maranatha to Anathema, is not
so common. There is little said of the word itself among
the Ancients, and less of its use in any form of excommu
nication.1 St. Chrysostom says/ it is a Hebrew word,
signifying, The Lord is come : and he particularly applies
it to the confusion of those who still abused the privileges
of the Gospel, notwithstanding that the Lord was come
among them. " This word," says he, " speaks terror to
those, who make their members the members of an har
lot, who offend their brethren by eating things offered
to idols, who name themselves by the names of men, who
deny the resurrection. The Lord of all is come down
among us ; and yet ye continue the same men ye were
before, and persevere in your sins." St. Jerom says,3 it
was more a Syriac, than a Hebrew word, though it had
something in it of both languages, signifying, Our Lord
is come. But he applies it against the perverseness of the
Jews, and others who denied the coming of Christ : making
this the sense of the Apostle, " If any man love not the
Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, the Lord is come ;
wherefore it is superfluous for any to contend with pertina
cious hatred against him, of the truth of whose coming

1 Gratian. Caus. xxiii. qua?st. iv. cap. 80. mentions it as used in a form
of excommunication by Pope Sylverius. * Chrys. Horn.
xliv. in 1 Cor. p. 718. 8 Hieron. Ep. 137. ad Marcellam.
Maranatha magis Syrum est quam Hebreeum : tamen etsi ex confinio utra-
rumque linguarum aliquid et Hebra?um sonat, et interpretatur, Dominus
noster venit: ut sit sensus, si quis non amat Dominum Jesum, anathema
sit; et illo completo idenceps inferatur, Dominus noster venit: Quod super-
Huuin sit adversus eum odiis pertinacibus velle contendere, quem venisse
jam constet.

108

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI

S

there is such apparent demonstration." The same sense is
given by Hilary the deacon, and Pelagius, who wrote under
the names of St. Ambrose1 and St. Jerom.2 And it is recei
ved by Estius and Dr. Lightfoot as the truest interpretation.
So that according to this sense, Maranatha could not be
any part of the form of excommunication but only a reason
for pronouncing Anathema against those who expressed
their hatred against Christ, by denying his coming; either
in words, as the Jews did, who blasphemed Christ, and
called Jesus Anathema or accursed; or else by wicked
works, as those who lived profanely under the name of
Christian. Yet otheTs of the Ancients interpret it of the future coming
of Christ. As St. Austin says Maranatha is a Syriac
word, signifying, The Lord will come? And he particu
larly applies it against the Arians, who could not be said to
love the Lord, because they denied his divine nature. Dr.
Hammond and many other modern interpreters* take Mara
natha in this sense, The Lord will come to judgment, as
St. Jude says, " The Lord cometh with ten thousands of
his saints, to execute judgment upon all the ungodly."
And they suppose this answered to the third and highest
degree of excommunication among the Jews, called Sham-
matha. For they say, the Jews had these three degrees of
excommunication, Niddui, Cherem, and Shammatha.
Niddui was the lowest degree of excommunication, being
only a suspension of the sinner from the synagogue and
society of his brethren for thirty days, if he repented: if
not, the time was doubled to sixty days ; and if he still con
tinued obstinate, it was prolonged to ninety days. Then if
he persisted impenitent still, he was punished with a more
solemn excommunication, called, Cherem, which answers
to Anathema or cursing, because the sinner was cast out
1 Ambros. in 1 Cor. xvi. 2 Hieron. in 1 Cor. xvi. Interpreta-
tur, Dominus noster venit. s Aug. Ep. 178. (Sive Altercatio
cum Pascentio. Anathema Gra?co sermone dixit, Condemnatus: Maranatha
defiriivit, Donee Dominus redeat. — Non ergo recte dicitur Dominum amare,
qui Domini et Dei unius audet substantiam separare, &c.
* Vid. Pool. Synopsis Criticor. in I Cor. xvi. 22. et Otho Lexicon Rab-
'binic. p. 180.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 109
with solemn execrations out of the law of Moses. The
third species, called Shammatha, was the most severe,
when a sinner, after all human means had in vain been
tried upon him, was consigned over totally and finally to
the divine judgment as a desperate and irrecoverable sinner.
The word Shammatha is upon this account said to signify
either, There is death : or, There shall be desolation : or,
The Lord cometh: which last origination of the word
answers to Maranatha. Now from this analogy and simili
tude of the name, these learned men suppose this form of
excommunication was taken into the Christian Church under
the name of Maranatha. But there is this grand objection
against the thing, that Chrysostom and St. Jerorn, and the
rest that have been mentioned, did not so understand it.
Besides, that no such word as Maranatha ever occurs
in any ancient form of excommunication. But still the
question may be put further, whether they had any such
excommunication, be the name or form what it would, as
was total, final, and irrevocable ; so as utterly to exclude
sinners from the communion of the Church without hopes
of recovery ; and so as to make -ihe Church wholly cease
to pray for them, or rather pray that God would take them
out of the world, and thereby deliver his Church from the
malice of their attempts, and power of their seduction ?
This question consists of several parts, and therefore as it
is proposed, so it must be answered with some distinction.
For first, there is nothing more certain, than that the Church
did sometimes pronounce a total, final, and irreversible sen
tence of excommunication against some more heinous cri
minals, keeping them under penance all their lives, and
denying them her external peace and communion at the
hour of death for example and terror ; yet not precluding
them the mercy of God, nor denying them the benefit of
her prayers, but encouraging them to hope for favour upon
their true repentance at God's final and unerring judgment.
In this sense, I say, it is most certain the Church did many
times make her sentence of excommunication irreversible, as
will be shewn more fully hereafter.1
1 Book xvii. '

110 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Sect. 17.— Whether Excommunication was ever pronounced with Execra
tion or devoting the Sinner to temporal Destruction.
But secondly, it is not so apparent, that the Church was
used to join execration to her censures, and devote men
to temporal destruction, by utterly refusing to pray for
them, or rather praying against them, that God would
take them out of the" world, and deliver his Church by that
means from their malicious power, and machinations of
seducement.1 Grotius thinks this was very rarely done,
but yet that there are some examples of it. For when Julian
added to his apostacy devilish designs of rooting out the
Christian religion, the Church used this weapon of extreme
necessity, and God heard her prayers. He reckons this
was done in imitation of the Jewish Shammatha. For
among the Jews, he says a little before, if any fell into
enormous crimes, and drew many after them, they did not
use the common Anathema against them, but that more
dreadful and tremendous one, which they called Shammatha,
and the Apostle after them, in the same sense, Maranatha.
For Maranatha signifies The Lord cometh. And by that
word prayer is made unto God,3 that he would speedily take
away the malefactor and seducer out of the world. An
example of which sort of Anathema, he thinks, is given
by the Apostle, Gal. v. 12. when he says, " I would that
they were even cut off that trouble you." The learned Dr.
Hicks in this matter joins entirely with Grotius, seeing no
other way to account for the many prayers made by tha
ancient Christians for Julian's destruction. Some indeed
fasted and prayed for his repentance and conversion, as
supposing he might be recovered from his error. Thus he
tells us out of Sozomen,3 how Didymus of Alexandria
prayed for him. But others absolutely prayed for his de-
1 Grot, in Luc. c.xxii. Hujus sane rarior est usus, non tamen nullus
Nam in Julianum, cum defectioni adderet machinationes evertendi Christi-
anismi, usa est ecclesia isto extremae necessitatis telo, et a. Deo est exau-
dita. s Ibid. Ea voce oratur Deus ut quamprimum talem
maleficum et seductorem tollat ex hominum numero. Hujus anathematis
exemplum est. Gal. v. 12.
* Hicks Answer to Julian, chap. vi. p. 150. ex Sozom.lib. vi. cap. 2.

CHAP. H.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Ill
struction, as thinking him utterly incapable of repentance,
and that he had sinned the sin unto death, for which it was
in vain to pray. Then he goes on to shew the nature of
his apostacy, his devotedness to the devil, and his spite to
Christ and the Christians : from whence he concludes,1 it
was reasonable for the Christians to look upon him as irreco
verable out of the snare of the devil, and upon that sup
position to pray for his destruction. He adds several other
arguments to shew the reasonableness of their presumption
that Julian had a diabolical malice against Christ,3 and that
he was one of those irrecoverable apostates, who had
trodden under foot the son of God, and counted the blood
of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified an unholy
thing, and who had done despite to the spirit of grace.
He had hardened his heart against divine miracles, like
Pharaoh, and therefore it is no wonder, if some of them
called for the plagues of Egypt upon him.3 He reproached
the living God, like Senaeherib, and that made some of
them, like Hezekiah,* to beseech God to bow down his ear
and hear ; and to open his eyes, and see, how Julian re
proached the Son of God ; and thereupon to say, " O Lord
our God, we beseech thee to save us out of his hand, that
all the kingdoms of the earth may know, that thou art the
Lord God, and that Jesus, whom Julian doth so reproach,
is thy Son and Christ." Gregory says," he designed worse
things against the Christians, than Diocletian, Maximian,
or Maximinus ever did ; that he was Jeroboam, Pharaoh,.
Ahab, and Nebuchadnezzar all in one ; Jeroboam in apos
tacy, Pharaoh in hardness of heart, Ahab in cruelty, and
Nebuchadnezzar in sacrilege ; and therefore it is not to be
wondered, that the Christians, who had such good reason to-
despair of the conversion of such a complicate tyrant prayed
for his destruction, because there was no other apparent
way of delivering the Church. And if it should please God
for our sins to plague the Church with such a spiteful enemy

( ' Ibid. p. 143. ¦ Ibid. p. 151. * Naz.
Invectiv. ii. p. 110. * Naz. Invect.ii. p. 123.
5 Naz. Invecv. i. p. 93, 110 and 111.

112 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
of Christ, and suffer a popish Julian indeed to reign over us,
" 1 here declare," says he, " that 1 should believe him incapa
ble of repentance, and upon that supposition should be
tempted to pray for his destruction as the only means of
delivering the Church." Thus far that learned man in his
account of the practice of the primitive Christians, and
their reasons, in praying for the destruction of Julian the
Apostate. To this may be added, what St. Jerom says, upon the
death of Julian, that the Church of Christ with exulta
tion sung her thanks to God in the words of the Prophet,
according to the Septuagint, " Thou hast even to our asto
nishment divided the heads of the powerful." Which is
also noted by Theodoret, who says, the people of Antioch
as soon as they heard of Julian's death, kept public feasts
and holidays for joy, and not only in their churches, but in
their theatres proclaimed the victory of the cross, exposing
the heathen prophecies to ridicule,3 particularly those of one
Maximus a magician, whom he had consulted : " O foolish
Maximus where are now thy prophecies? God and his Christ
have overcome." So again he tells us of one Julianas Saba,3
who had it revealed to him in his prayers that Julian was
slain : upon which he immediately changed his tears into
joy, and put on a cheerful countenance, expressing the in
ward satisfaction of his mind. Which the by-standers ob
serving, desired to know the reason of his sudden change,
and he told them, that the wild boar, who laid waste the
vineyard of the Lord, had now suffered punishment for all the
injuries he had done against the Lord; that he now lay dead,
and they needed no longer to be afraid of his designs
against them. Upon which they all leaped for joy and sung
praises to God for the victory. Now it is probable, that they
who thought it their duty thus to give God thanks for his
fall, were no less solicitous beforehand to pray for his de
struction. Their thanksgivings were a declaration what
sort of prayers they had made, and they could not but
1 Hieron. in Habac. iii. 14. Ecclesia Christi cum exultatlone cantavit
divisisti in stupore capita potentium. s Theod. lib. iii. cap. 27.
3 Ibid. cap. xxiv.

CHAP. II.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ll3
rejoice when they were heard and answered. It is some con
firmation of all this, that Socrates says, they were used some
times to cast men out of the Church with execration, as he
notes of oneHermogenes, a Novatian bishop,1 who for some
blasphemous books that he had written, was solemnly ex
communicated, fitTd icardpac:, with cursing, which in all
probability denoted something more than the common ana
thema that accompanied every excommunication.
lt is also noted by Socrates, lib. i. cap. 37. that Alexander,
bishop of Constantinople, prayed thus against Arius : " If
the doctrine of Arius be true, let me die before the day
appointed for our disputation : but if the faith, which I hold
be true, and the doctrine of Arius false, let Arius by the time
determined suffer the punishment, which his impiety de
serves." Which was accordingly fulfilled: for Arius the
next day voided his entrails with his excrements, and so
perished by a most ignominious death. The same is related
by Athanasius, in his epistle to Serapion, torn. i. p. 671.
who says, he prayed to God in these words : " "Apov Apuav,
Take Arius out of the world." All which shews, that in
some special cases they made no scruple to devote very
malicious and incorrigible apostates to extermination and
destruction. Yet on the other hand St. Chrysostom was utterly
against this practice. For he has a whole homily upon
this point, that men ought not to anathematize either the
living or the dead ; they may anathematize their opinions
or actions, but not their persons. Where, as Grotius
rightly observes,2 he takes Anathema in the strictest
sense, for praying to God for the destruction of the sinner.
Against this he argues from these several topics. 1. " Be
cause Christ died for all men, for his enemies, for tyrants,
for magicians, for those that hated and crucified him."3
2. " Because the Church in imitation of Christ daily prays
for all men." 3. " Because the Christian religion rather
obliges us to lay down our own lives for our neighbours,

1 Socrat. lib. vii. cap. xii. 2 Grot, in Luc. vi. 23,
3 Chrys. Horn, lxxvi. de Anathemate. torn. i. p. 909.
VOL. VI. I

114 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
than take away theirs." 4. " It is usurping upon the pre
rogative of Christ. For what is such an Anathema but
saying, let him be given to the devil, let him have no place
of salvation, let him be separated from Christ'? Who gave
thee this authority and power ? Why dost thou assume the
dignity of the Son of God, who shall sit in judgment, and
set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on his left?"
5. " The Apostles had no such practice in excommunication.
They cast heretics out of the Church in such manner, as
one would pluck out a right eye, or cut off a limb, with
indications of compassion and sorrow. They carefully
rebuked and expelled their heresies, but did not thus ana
thematize their persons. 6. It is an absurd practice, whe
ther it be used toward the living, or the dead. If toward
the living, thou art cruel in so cutting off one, who is still
in a capacity of turning and changing his life from evil to
good : if toward the dead, thou art more cruel ; because
now to his own master he stands or falls, and is not under
any human power." From all this he concludes, " That
we ought only to anathematize the impious and heretical
opinions of men, but to spare their persons, and pray for
their salvation. There are some, who make a question,
whether this is one of Chrysostom's genuine discourses ;
but without any good reason; because the matter and style,
as Du Pin observes, argue it to be his, and there are other
arguments to prove it genuine.1 Sixtus Senensis and Ha-
bertus think,2 he speaks only against private men's
using the anathema against heretics: but it is
plain, he argues against the public as well as private
use of it, in the sense wherein he takes it, that doc
trines, and not men, are to be -anathematized : we are to pray
for the persons of heretics, when we condemn their opinions ;
and desire their conversion and salvation, not their destruc
tion. The only thing that can truly be inferred from hence is,
that St. Chrysostom had different sentiments about this mat
ter from some others. They thought there were some cases,

' Sixt. Senens.. Bibliothec. lib. vi. Annotat. 267 2 Habert.
Archierat. p. 748.

CHAP. III.j CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 115
in which it was lawful to pray for the destruction of very
malicious and incorrigible sinners, such as Julian, when
they were past all hopes, and there was no other visible
way to save the Church from their hellish designs, but by
their destruction : he thought there "was no such case ; but
that every man was capable of pardon so long as he lived
in this world, even though he had committed what others
called the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, and the
sin unto death, of which he had a diff'erent notion from what
some others had ; and therefore that we were to pray for
every man's conversion, and not his destruction. This, as far.
as I can judge, was the different sense which the Ancients
had upon this most difficult matter : and if they varied upon
the point iri so nice a case,1 it is not much to be wondered at
since the Moderns are not agreed upon it, but some Churches
as I shewed before out of Du Moulin, forbid all such
sort of excommunications, as unfit to be used without a par
ticular revelation. 1 have stated the matter fairly on both
sides, and leave the determination to the liberty and discre
tion of every judicious reader. CHAP. III.
Of the Objects of Ecclesiastical Censures, or the Persons
on whom they might be inflicted: wilh a General Account
of the Crimes, for which they were inflicted.
Sect. 1. — All Members of the Church, falling into great and scandalous
Crimes, made liable to ecclesiastical Censures, without exception.
Having thus far explained the nature of ecclesiastical
censures, and the several kinds of them, we are next to
consider the objects or persons, on whom they might be
inflicted, and the crimes, for which they were inflicted on
them. As to the persons or objects of ecclesiastical cen
sure, they were all such delinquents, as fell into great and
scandalous crimes after baptism, whether men or women,
priests or people, rich or poor, princes or subjects: for the
ecclesiastical discipline made no distinction, save when the
i 2

110 , THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
multitude of sinners combining together, made it impossible
to put Church-censures in execution, or made it hazardous
for fear of doing more harm than good by the strict execu
tion of them. Infidels and unbelievers were not considered
in this matter, as being no members of the Church: accor
ding to that rule of the Apostle, 1 Cor. v. 12. " What
have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not
ye judge them that are within ? But them, that are without,
God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves
that wicked person." Catechumens were in a middle state
between Heathens and Christians, only candidates of bap
tism, and not yet admitted to full communion by the laver
of regeneration and adoption of children : and therefore
neither were they the proper objects of Church-discipline,
save only as they were capable of being thrust down into
a lower class of their own order, if they committed any
crime deserving such a degradation, of which I have given
some account already,1 in speaking of the institution of the
catechumens. Here we take discipline, as respecting only
those, that were called the TeAemh, perfect communicants,
or persons in full communion with the Church.
Sect. 2. — Women as well as Men.
In censuring these the Church made no distinction of
sex or quality. For women were subjected to discipline,
as well as men. Valesius says,3 they were very rarely put
to do public penance; and Bona3 says, never at all for the
three first ages, but they wept and fasted and did other
works of repentance in private. And some take that canon*
of St. Basil in this sense, where he says, if a woman was
convicted of adultery, or confessed it herself, by the ancient
rules she was not to be made a public example " Sj)/too-i£uetv
«'k ekeAeuo-ov ol iraripsQ." But Cyprian and Tertullian and
the ancient Canons make no such distinction : neither i"

1 Book x. chap. ii. sect. 17. ! Vales, in Socrat. lib. v.
cap. xix. 3 Bona. Rer. Liturg. lib. i. cap. xvii. n. 5.
* Basil, can. xxxiv.

CHAP. III.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 1 17
it probable, that when multitudes both of men and women
fell openly into idolatry in times of persecution^ that the
one did public and the other private penance only. For
Cyprian never speaks of any but the public Exomologesis
or confession, and public imposition of hands to -reconcile
penitents again after lapsing :T and yet there it had been
proper to have made the distinction between men and
women, if he had known of any such distinction in the
practice of the Church. But whether their penance was
public or private, the case is still the same as to the exer
cise of discipline upon them. For they were certainly
excluded from communion, and that sometimes for many
years, and in some cases even to the hour of death, as
appears from many canons of the Council of Eliberis,2
Ancyra,3 and others. And this is a sufficient indication of
their being liable to ecclesiastical censure, as well as men.
Nay there are some undeniable instances of women doing
public penance, as Bona owns, in the time of St! Jerom :
for he speaking of Fabiola, a rich Roman lady, who had
divorced herself from her first husband for adultery, and
married a second, says, that after the death of the
second husband, when she came to consider (he unlaw
fulness of the fact, she put on sackcloth, and made public
confession of her error in the Lateran Church,* in the sight
of all the people of Rome ; standing in the order of peni
tents in Lent, and in a penitent garb, with her hair dissol
ved, and , her cheeks wan with tears, submitting her
neck to imposition of hands ; the bishop and presbyters
and all the people weeping with her. This seems to
have been a voluntary act of penance, as there were
many such in those days, when men chose to expiate even

1 Cypr.de Lapsis. p. 128. Ep. xvi. al. x. p. 37. Vid. Baluz. ad Horn.
i. Caesar. Arel. Bibl. Pat. torn, xxvii. Ed. Lugd. p. 340.
8 Con. Elib. can. 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 63, 65. 3 Con.
Ancyran. can. xxi. 4 Hieron. Ep. 30. Epitaph. Fabiolae.
Quis crederet, ut post mortem secundi viri iu semet ipsam reversa — Saccum,
indueret, ut errorem publ'ice fateretur, et tota urbe spectante Romana ante
diem Paschas in Basilica Laterani staret in ordine pcenitentium, episcopo,
presbyteris et omni populo collachrymantibus, sparso crine, ora lurida,
qualidas manus, sordida colla submitteret 1

118 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
private crimes by publie penance ; but if it had not been
customary at all for women to do public penance, St.
Jerom would have noted the singularity of it in that respect,
rather than any other. But he seems to place the singula
rity of it in this, that she condescended of her own accord
to do public penance in a case, where no laws of the Church
could have obliged her to it. For whilst her husband lived,
no constraint could be laid upon her : it being a rule not to
admit married persons to public penance without consent
of both parties :l and when her husband was dead, her crime
perhaps was one of that nature, which did not directly bring
her under the power of ecclesiastical censure, but by her own
consent. For, as we shall see more by and by, there were
many crimes of that nature, which, though allowed to be sins
of no mean size, yet could not bring men against their wills
to a course of publie penance by any laws of the Church.
Sect. 3. — The Rich as well as the Poor. No Commutation of Penance
allowed, nor Friendship nor Favour.
But where the crimes were flagrant, and such as the
Church could take cognizance of, there she usually pro
ceeded without respect of persons. No regard was had to
the rich more than the poor, but all criminals were consi
dered alike, in the business of repentance, as equally obli
ged to comply with the stated rules of discipline, in order
to gain admission into the Church after an expulsion.
There was but one door of re-entry, which is so often called
Justa and Legitima Pcenitentia, the just and legal penance,
by Cyprian2 and other writers : and no commutation was
thought an equivalent, where this was wanting. Which
is evident from this, that they would not accept any gifts or
oblations from excommunicate persons, or heretics, or
schismatics, or any that, were not in full communion with
the Church,3 lest this should look like communicating with

1 Con. Arelat. ii. can. 22. Poenitentiam conjugatis non nisi ex consensu
dandam. 2 Cypr. Ep. x. al. xvi. ad Cler. p. 37. Ep. liv. al. lvii.
ad Cornel, p. 116. Ep. lxii. al. iv. p. 9. De Lapsis. p. 129. Con. Eliber.
can. xiv et can. iii.
» See before, Chap. ii. sect. xiii. and Book xv. chap. ii.

CHAP. 1II.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 119
them before their time, and receiving their money in lieu of
repentance. Cyprian indeed once intimates, that there
were some,1 who for filthy lucre were inclined to accept per
sons ; and who, to make a market of unlawful gain, would
gratify the rich and those, who could give large gifts, to get
them an easier way of admittance than by the severe and
tedious way of a just and full penance : but he very sharply
inveighs against these, and all their sinister arts of dissol
ving discipline, and ruining men's souls, under pretence of
granting them a fallacious and deceitful peace, which was
their real destruction.
Sect. 4.— What Privilege some claimed upon the Intercession of the Mar
tyrs in Prison for them. And how this was answered by Cyprian.
One of these insiduous arts, which they managed with
some colour and dexterity, was to get the martyrs and con
fessors in prison to intercede with bishops for such, and
write letters in their favour. For we must know, that an
ciently the martyrs were allowed this privilege, when any
penitent had well nigh performed his legal penance, and
was near upon being received again, to write letters to the
bishop, that such an one might be admitted to communion,
though his full term of penance was not quite expired :
And so far their petition was commonly accepted. But
these crafty men, for a little underhand gain, had got a
trick to desire the martyrs to intercede for sueh as had done
little or no penance: nay, they abused their privilege so far,
as peremptorily to require the admission of such, without
any previous examination of their merits: and sometimes
they required the bishop, not only to admit such a penitent,
but all that belonged to him ; which was a very uncertain
and blind sort of petition, and created great envy to the
bishop, when perhaps twenty,3 or thirty, or a greater num-
' ' Cypr. Ep. xi. al. xv. ad Martyr. p. 35. Qui personas accipientes, in be
nefices vestris aut gratificantur, aut illicitae negotiationis nundinas aucupantur.
" Cypr. Ep. xi. al. xv. ad Martyr, p. 35. Audio quibusdam sic libellos
fieri, ut dicatur: Communicet ille cum suis. Quod nunquam omnino a mar-
tjribtts factum est, ut incerta et coeca petitio invidiam nobis postmodum
cumulet. Late enim patet. quando dicitur: tile cum suis; et possunt nobis

120 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVi,
ber of nameless persons were included in one libel, and the
bishop was forced to do a very ungrateful office, and deny
them altogether. Cyprian complains much of these abuses,
both in his letter to the martyrs, and in others written upon
the same subject to his clergy and people.1 But chiefly he
complains of those libels, which were sent to him by Lucian
the martyr, one of which runs in this form :2 " All the con
fessors to Cyprian the bishop, greeting : know that we have
granted peace to all those, of whom you have had an ac
count how they have behaved themselves since the com
mission of their crimes : and we would that these presents
should be notified by you to the rest of the bishops. We
wish you to maintain peace with the holy martyrs." This
Lucian had written many such letters before in the name of
Paulus, the eonfessor, whilst he was in prison, and others
after his death, saying, he had his command so to do. All
which Cyprian complains of, in a Letter to the Clergy of
Rome,3 as a thing dissolving all the bands of faith, and the
fear of God, and the commandments of the Lord, and the
holiness and vigour of the Gospel ; and as creating great
envy to the bishops, whilst they were forced to deny to lap
sers, what they boasted to have obtained of the martyrs and
confessors. This occasioned, he says, great seditions and
tumults: for in many cities throughout the province of
Carthage the people rose up in multitudes against their
bishops, and by their clamours compelled them to grant
them instantly that peace, which, they all said, the martyrs
and confessors had given them : they who had not courage
enough and strength of faith to resist them, were by this
means terrified and subdued into a compliance with them.
And he had much ado himself to withstand them at Car-

viceni, et triceni, et amplius offerri, qui propinqui et affines, et liberti ac do-
mestici esse asseverentur ejus, qui aecipit libellum.
1 Cypr. Ep. x. al- xvi. ad Cler. Ep. xii. al. xvii. ad Plebem. Ep. xviii.
Hi. xxvi. ad Cler. 2 Lucian. Ep. ad Cypr. xvii. al. xxiii. Scias
nos universis, de quibus apud te ratio constiterit, quid post commissum ege-
rint, dedisse pacem : et hanc formam per te et aliis episcopis innotescere vo-
luimus. Optamus te cum Sanctis martyribus pacem habere. Vid. LuciaD.
Ep. xx. al. xxii. ad Celerin. p. 47. s c r. E xkiii al XXTii>
ad Cler. Rom. p. 52.

CHAP. 1II.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 121
thage : for some turbulent men, who were hardly govern
able before, and thought it much to be kept back from
communion till he returned out of exile, when they had
gotten these letters of the martyrs, were all in a flame upon
the strength of them, and began to rage immoderately, and
in an extorting manner demand the peace, which they said,
the martyrs had granted them.
By this representation of Cyprian, and his remonstrance
upon it, it is easy to discern what mischief the abusing this
privilege of the martyrs did to the true exercise of discipline;
whilst some out of lucre, others out of terror, complied with
the lapsers' unreasonable demands, and let the rich and the
great escape punishment, and intrude themselves into the
communion of the Church again without any sufficient evi
dences of repentance : but they, who, like Cyprian, had in
tegrity and firmness enough to oppose these impious prac
tices, kept up the discipline of the Church in its true vigor,
and would hearken to no pretences or conditions of this
kind, which only tended to impose upon them with false
shews of a deceitful peace, and profane the mystery of
the holy sacrament, by giving it to the impenitent and the
ungodly. Sect. 5. — Magistrates and Princes subject to Ecclesiastical Censures, as
well as any others.
Neither was it only men in a private condition they
thus treated, but also those of the highest rank and dignity.
For the civil magistrates and princes were subject to eccle
siastical censures, as well as any others. In the times of
persecution, the very taking of some civil offices made
Christians liable to excommunication. Particularly if they
took upon them the office of the Duumviri, or the provin
cial office of the Flamines or Sacerdotes Provinciarum :
because, as Gothofred shews out of many laws of the
Theodosian Code,1 these offices obliged them to exhibit the
usual games or shews to the people: which in time of
heathenism ' could not be done without involving them in
1 Gothofred. Paratition. ad Cod, Theod. lib. xv. tit. 5. de Spectaculis.

122 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
some measure in the guilt of idolatry, to which those games
were consecrated. For which reason any Christian under
taking such an office, was reputed an encourager and par
taker of idolatry, though he did not actually sacrifice to
idols in his office. Upon which account the Council of
Eliberis,1 which was held in time of persecution', Anno
305, or thereabouts, orders, " that if any Christian took
upon him the office of a flamen, though he did not sacrifice,
but only exhibit the idolatrous shews to the people, he
should be kept under strict penance all his life, and only be
admitted to communion at his death; and that in conside
ration, that he had abstained from offering the abominable
sacrifices:" for if he had offered sacrifice, then, by the pre
ceding canon2 he was denied communion to the very last
Nay, though they had neither sacrificed, nor exhibited the
shews out of their expense to the people, but only worn the
crown in their office, by two other canons of the same Coun
cil,3 they were to be denied the communion for a year or two.
So that the being in a public office, was so far from ex
empting a magistrate from the censures of the Church, that
in many cases it was the very reason why they were execu
ted with greater severity upon him, whilst no man could go
through such an office without the guilt and stain of idola
try in some measure sticking to him. And when these offi
ces were freed from idolatry : yet if a magistrate still com
mitted other crimes worthy of eeclesiastical punishment, the
censures of the Church, notwithstanding his office, would
lay hold of him, and the name or character of a magistrate
would give him no protection. This appears plainly from
the proceedings of Synesius against Andronieus,* the
governing magistrate of Ptolemais, whom he formally ex-
1 Con. Eliber. can. iii. Flamir.es, qui non iinmolaverint, sed munus tan
tum uederint, eo quod se a funestis abstinuerunt sacrificiis, placuit in fine eis
prastari coinmunionem, acta tamen legitima pcenitentia.
3 Ibid. caii. ii. Flamines, qui post fidem lavacri sacrifieaverunt, plaiuit nee
in fine eos accipere communionem. 3 Con.Eliber.can.lv. Sacer-
dotes, qui tantum coronam portant, nee sacrificant, nee de suis sumptibus ali
quid ad idola pr&stant, placuit post biennium accipere communionem. It.
can. Ivi. Magistratum vero, qui agit duumviratum, uno anno prohibenduni
placuit, ut seab ecclesia cohibeat. * Synes. Ep. Iviii.

CHAP. III.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

123

communicated with all his accomplices : and from what has
been observed before,1 of the judge that was censured in
the time of Julian, mentioned by St. Ambrose;2 and
Athanasius excommunicating the governor of Libya for his
immoralities, mentioned by St. Basil,3 which need not
here be repeated. To these I add that general rule of
the first Council of Aries, made with relation to all govern
ors of provinces, that when they went to the government of
any province,* they should take communicatory letters from
their own bishop along with them, and be subject to the
care of the bishop of the places wherever they went ; so as
if they committed any thing contrary to the public disci
pline, they were to be excluded from the communion of the
Church. This was no rule to deprive magistrates of their
office, though they were heretics or schismatics, as Baronius5
would have it understood : for as Albaspiny in his notes
upon the place more truly observes against him, there is
not a word about this in the canon : neither is it likely, that
a provincial Council should make a decree about that, which
is nb way in their power, but in the power of the prince
only. They might order, and that with good reason, he
says,6 " that no heretic or schismatic, although he was the
governor of a province, should be admitted to communicate
with the Church : but that therefore he should be removed
from his government, because he was an heretic, was at the
will and discretion of the prince, and not of the Church : it
belongs to the prince and not the Church, to take away the
power of subordinate magistrates from them." The plain
drift therefore of this canon is not to deprive inferior magis
trates of any civil power or jurisdiction, which the supreme
magistrate committed to them ; which the Church had no
authority to do : but only to deny them her own communion,
1 See chap. ii. sect. 11. 2 Ambros. Ep. xxix. ad Theodos.
8 Basil. Ep. xlvii. * Con. Arelat. i. can. 7. De Prresidibus
placuit, ut cum promoti fuerint, literas accipiant ecclesiasticas communica-
torias: ita tamen ut in quibuscunque locis gesserint, ab episcopo ejusdem
loci cura de illis agatur ; ut cum cseperint contra disciplinam publicum
agere, tunc demum a communione excludantur. Similiter et de his fiat qui
rempublicam agere volunt. 6 Baron, an. 814. ii. 57.
* Albaspin. in can. vii. Con. Arelat.

124 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
if unworthy of it ; which was a thing then uncontested, and
indisputably within the limits of her power.
Neither need we wonder at this, since the Church laid
claim te an higher power, even of excluding princes, or the
supreme magistrates, from her communion, when guilty of
notorious violations of 'the laws of Christian society; of
which there are certain evidences both in the doctrine and
practice of the ancient bishops of the Chuich. The story,
which is related by Eusebius concerning the Emperor
Philip, though disputed by many as to the truth of the fact,
yet is a sufficient evidence of the opinion of Eusebius, who
relates it.1 Now he tells us, " there was a tradition that he
was a Christian, and that on the vigil of the passover he
desired to communicate in prayers with the rest of the peo
ple : but that the bishop, who then presided, would not
suffer him to enter, before he had confessed his crimes, and
joined himself to those, who had sinned, and stood in the
place or order of the penitents. For otherwise he could not
be received by him, for the many crimes which he had com
mitted. Upon which the Emperor willingly obeyed, de
monstrating his sincere and religious disposition towards
the fear of God by the tenor of his actions." Some ques
tion the truth of the story ,a and think, that it is a mistake of
Philip the Emperor, for one Philip, the Prcefectus Augusta-
lis of Egypt, who was a Christian : others defend it as a
true relation,3 only they think it was a transaction in pri
vate, which is the reason we have no account of it in hea
then story. But whether the fact was true or false, the
reflection made upon it by Eusebius is of great moment
in the present question. For he, supposing him to have been
a Christian, says, " without such a compliance the bishop
would never have admitted him." W;hich remark is suffi
cient to shew the nature of the Church's discipline in gene
ral, whatever becomes of the truth of this particular story.
Filesaeus* and Valesius5 confound this story with the
1 Euseb. Hist- lib. vi. cap. 34.
2 Cave. Prim. Christ, part. i. cap. iii. p. 48. 3 Pagi. Critic.
in Baron, an. 247. n. 6. ex Huet. Origeniam. lib. i. cap. iii. n. 12.
* Fiiesac. Not. in Vincent. Lirin. cap. xxiii. n. 125.
b Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 34.

CHAP, in.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 125
relation which St. Chryspstom gives of Babylas, denying
entrance into the Church to one of the Roman Emperors,
upon the account of a barbarous murder committed by him
upon a son of some confederate prince, who was entrusted
as an hostage with him. Chrysostom names neither the
Emperor nor confederate prince, and the stories differ in the
whole relation, but especially in this material circumstance,
that Philip is said to comply with the bishop's admonition
and stand in the order of penitents ; but he, whom Chrysostom
speaks of, was so far from submitting to the admonition of
Babylas, that he remained incorrigible, and "grew enraged,
and cast him into prison, and loaded him with chains, which
the martyr ordered to be buried with him, when the tyrant
put him to death. So that this could not be Philip, but
Decius, the persecuting heathen, under whom Babylas suf
fered. However Chrysostom makes some curious remarks
upon the behaviour of Babylas, both in reference to his cou
rage and prudence, which abundantly shew the spirit of
discipline then prevailing in the Church. 1. For, first, he
remarks, that Babylas acted with the freedom and boldness
of Elias and St. John Baptist,1 driving out of the Church
not a tetrarch of a few cities, nor a king of one nation ; but
him, who governed the greatest part of the world : a mur
derer, who had many nations, many cities, and a prodigious
army at his command ; one, that was in all respects terrible,
as well upon the account of his immense dominions, as the
fierceness and cruelty of his temper : him he expelled as a
vile and worthless slave, with as much intrepidity, constancy,
and bravery of mind, as a.shepherd would drive away from
his flock a scabbed and infected sheep, to prevent the con
tagion of the distemper from spreading to the rest of the
flock, Here he breaks out into a rapture, admiring his un
daunted mind, his lofty soul, his heavenly terror of spirit,
and angelical constancy, superior to all this visible world,
and only fixed upon God the Supreme King ; acting as if
he stood before the great judge, and heard him say, cast
out the wicked and infected sheep from the holy' flock.

Chrys. de Babyla. sive cont. Gentiles, torn. j. p. 740.

1 26 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
2 Hence he observes, how fearless and undaunted Babylas
must be with respect to other men, who gave such a speci
men of his power over the Emperor. He could never act or
speak out of favour or hatred ; but with a mind equally ior-
tified against fear and flattery, and all other things of the
like nature, which are apt to beset men, he stood firm, and
did not in the least corrupt right judgment. 3 He re
marks further, how he tempered his courage with Christian
prudence, observing a decent mean in his behaviour. A
man of his undaunted spirit might have gone much further.
He might have railed at the Emperor, and reviled him ; he
mio-ht have pulled the crown from his head, and have beaten
him on the face : but his soul was seasoned with spiritual
salt, which taught him to observe a decorum in all his
management, and do nothing rashly or foolishly, but by the
rules of right reason, which was a thing the philosophers in
their reproofs of kings seldom observed.. 4. Hence he re
marks, of how great advantage this example was to all men,
both believers and unbelievers. The unbelievers were
astonished at the action, and admired it : for they seeing
the intrepidity of the servants of Christ, could not but deride
the abject servility of those, who ruled in the heathen tem
ples, when they observed them always more disposed to
worship their kings, than their gods or idols. Whereas
Babylas punished the injurious king, as far as it was lawful
for a priest to do j1 he pulled down the high spirit of the
prince; he vindicated the divine laws, when they were vio
lated ; he punished the king for his murder with a punish
ment, that to all men of a sound mind is the most terrible of
any other. He did not, like Diogenes, bid him stand out of
his sunshine ; but when he thrust himself impudently with
in the saered boundaries of the Church, and confounded all
good order, he drove him from his master's house, as he
would have done a dog, or an offending slave. And so the
holy man took down the confidence of unbelievers, who
were then the greatest part of the Roman Empire. And for
those, who had already embraced the faith of Christ, he by
1 Chrys. de Babyla. sive cont. Gentiles, torn. i. p. 747.

CHAP. III.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 127
this act made them more circumspect and religious ; not
only private men, but soldiers, captains, and generals;
shewing them, that among Christians the prince and chief
of all, are but names, and that he, that wears the crown,
when he is to be punished and rebuked, is no more con
sidered than one of the lowest order.1 5. Hence he con
cludes, lastly, that this rare example of virtue, was matter of
instruction both to priests and princes, to teach princes to
submit to the rules of discipline, and priests to take courage
in the exercise of it: forasmuch as that the care of the
world, and what is done in it, is as properly committed to
them, as to him that wears the purple ; and that they ought
rather to part with their lives, than part with or diminish
that power and authority, which God from above has com
mitted to them. Any one may perceive by this discourse of
St. Chrysostom, what opinion he had of the power and ex
tent of ecclesiastical discipline, even over sovereign princes:
not to pull off their crowns, and dethrone them ; not to ravish
away their temporal power, under the pretence of the spiritual
power being superior ; nor yet to speak evil of dignities, or
treat them unmannerly, and revile them ; but only to debar
them from the communion of the Church, when by notorious
wickedness they rendered themselves altogether unworthy,
and reallj incapable of it. Which is agreeable to that general
direction he gives in another place to the clergy, not to ad
mit any one of notorious improbity, cruelty, or impurity to
the Lord's table : " although it be a commander," says he,2
" or a governor, or even he that wears the diadem, that
comes unworthily, prohibit him : thou hast greater power
than he. He adds a little after, if thou art afraid to do this,
bring him unto me. I will not suffer any such thing to be
done : I will sooner give my own life, than the body of the
Lord unworthily : I will shed my own blood, before I will
give that most holy blood to an unworthy man."

1 Chrys. de Babyla. sive cont. Gentiles, torn. i. p. 749.
' Chrys. Horn, lxxxii. sive lxxxiii. in Mat. 705. Kclv sparnybg tic y, «?"
iiirapxog, Kq,v avrbg b rb tiatripa inpuceiptvog, ava%in>g ti vpoatiy icaKvaov,
finZova iKEiva rrjv l^Htjiav ?%«c.

128 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
But there is none more famous than St. Ambrose for
his remarkable freedom in this matter with the greatest
of princes, whether in admonishing them, or in denying
them the communion upon the commission of some great
offences. Paulinus, the writer of his Life says, he sepa
rated Maximus from the communion,1 admonishing him
to repent for shedding the blood of Gratian his lord, if
ever he hoped to find mercy at the hands of God. So
when Valenfinia.11 was solicited by Symmachus, the hea
then governor of Rome, to restore the gentile rites, and
suffer the altar of victory to be repaired in the capital ;
St. Ambrose wrote to him, and told him, among many other
arguments,2 " that, if he thus gratified the Heathen in restor
ing idolatry, the bishops could not bear or dissemble it
with a patient mind. He might, if he pleased, come to
church, but he would either find no priest there, or else
only one to resist him, and deny him communion." "And
what will you answer," says he, " to the priest, when he
tells you, the Church desires not your oblations, or gifts,
because you have adorned the temples of the Gentiles with
your gifts ? the altar of Christ refuses your gifts., because
you have erected an altar to the idol gods.''
But the most remarkable instance of his freedom was
shewn in his treatment of Theodosius the Great, after he
had inhumanly put to death seven thousand men at Thes-
salonica, without- distinguishing the innocent from the
guilty. When he had committed this fact, not being very
sensible of his crime, he came to Milan, and according to
custom was going to church ; but St. Ambrose met him
at the gate, and accosted him in this manner, as Theodoret*
relates the story : " You seem not to understand, sir, ihe

1 Paulin. Vit. Ambros. Ipsum Maximum a. communionis consortio segre.
gavit, admonens ut effusi sanguinis domini sui — ageret poenitentiam, si sibi
apud Deum velet esse consultum. 2 Ambros. Ep. XXX. ad
Valentin. Junior. Certe episcopi hoc aequo animo pati et dissimulare non
possunt. Licebit tibi ad ecclesiam convenire : sed illic non invenies sacer-
dotem, aut invenies resistentem. Quid respondebis sacerdoti dicenti tibi;
Munera tu non quant ecclesia, quia templa Gentilium muneribus adornasth
Ara Christi dona tua respuit, quoniam aram simulacris fecisti. s Theod.
Jib. v. cap. 18. Vid. Aug. Horn. 49. ex. 50. torn. x. p. 202.

CHAP. III.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 129
greatness of the murder you have committed. Your anger
not being yet allayed, hinders your reason from considering
what you have done. And perhaps the greatness of your
Empire will not suffer you to acknowledge your offence,
and power opposes itself to reason. But you must know,
that our nature is mortal and frail: our original is dust,
whence we were taken, and into which we must return
again. It is not fit, you should deceive yourself with the
splendour of your purple, and forget the weakness of the
body that is covered with it. Your subjects, sir, are of the
same nature with yourself, and you are a servant as
well as they: for we have one common Lord, and King, the
Maker of this universe. Therefore with what eyes will
you look upon the house of our common Lord? with what
feet will you tread his holy pavement? will you stretch
forth those hands still dropping with the blood of that
unjust murder, and therewith take the holy body of the
Lord? and then put the cup of that precious blood to
your mouth, who have shed so much blood by ^thefhasty
decree of an angry mind? Depart, I beseech you, and do
not aggravate and augment your former iniquity by the ad
dition of a new crime. Refuse not those bonds, which the
Lord of all confirms from heaven above. It is but a small
thing that is laid upon you, but it will recover you to per
fect health and salvation. The Emperor who had] been
educated in the holy doctrine, arid knew what were the
different offices of priests and kings, was so moved with
these words, that he returned to his palace with groans and
tears. Eight months passed between this and the festival
of our Saviour's nativity, and all that time the Emperor sat
lamenting in his own palace, and shedding rivers of tears.
Which Ruffin, the master of the palace, who for his fami
liarity with the Emperor could take a great freedom^with
him, observing, came to him, and desired to know the
reason of his. tears. To whom the Emperor replied, you
make a jest of the thing, Ruffin : for you are not touched
with the sense of my misfortunes ; but I mourn and lament
in consideration of my calamity, that whilst the temple of
God is open to the very slaves and beggars, and they can
go in freely, and supplicate their Lord, it is inaccessible to
VOL. VI. K

130 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
me;, and besides all this, heaven is shut against me : for I
remember the words of our Lord, which plainly say, Whom
soever ye shall bind on earth, he shall be bound in heaven.
Then Ruffin said, I will go therefore to the bishop, if you
please, and intreat him to loose your bonds. The Emperor
replied, he will not be persuaded. For I know the justice
of the sentence which St. Ambrose has given, and he will
not out of any reverence to the imperial power, transgress
the divine law. But Ruffin insisted, and with many words
promising to appease Ambrose towards him ; he bid him
go quickly, and he himself followed a little after, relying
upon the promises of Ruffin. But St. Ambrose- no sooner
saw Ruffin, but he said to him, Ruffin, thou art a very
shameless man. For thou wast the evil counsellor of so
great a slaughter, and now thou hardenest thy forehead,
and hast cast away shame, neither blushing, nor trembling
for so great a ravagement made of the image of God.
Ruffin still went on with his supplication, and told him the
Emperor himself was coming. At which Ambrose, kindled
with a divine fervour, said, I tell thee before-hand, Ruffin, I
will not admit him within the divine gates: but and if he will
turn his empire into tyranny, and slay me also, I shall with
great pleasure take my death. Ruffin hearing this, sent one
immediately to the Emperor, to certify him of the bishop's
resolution, and to desire him to stay in the palace: but
the Emperor being on his way in the middle of the forum,
when he received the message, said, I will go and bear his
just reproofs. When he came to the holy boundaries he
would not enter into the Church, but going to the bishop,
as he sat in the saluting- house, he begged of him to ab-
o ' oo
solve him from his bonds. But Ambrose told him, this his
coming was tyrannical ; and that he now began to rage
against God, and trample upon the divine laws. The Em
peror said, by no means : I do not offer myself against the
prescript of the laws, I do not desire to enter the Church
in an unlawful manner; but I entreat you to absolve* me
from my bonds, and to remember the clemency of our com
mon Lord, and not shut the gate against me, which the
Lord hath opened to all those, that turn to him with repent
ance. What repentance, then said the bishop, have you

CHAP. III.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 131
shewn since the commission of so great a wickedness •
with what medicine have you cured your grievous wounds ?
The Emperor replied, it belongs to your office to prepare
the medicine, and cure those wounds, and my paTt is to use
what you prescribe. Then said Ambrose, forasmuch as you
have suffered anger and fury, and not reason, to sit in judg
ment and give sentence in matters before : now make a law,
which may render all judgment given in anger null and
void: when any sentence of death or confiscation is pro
nounced, let there be thirty days time between that and the
execution, to wait for the judgment of reason. When this
term is expired, let the scribes again present the sentence
you have given before you, and then reason without anger
will be able to examine the sentence by her own judgment,
and discern whether it be just or unjust. If it be unjust,
cancel and reverse it : if just, corroborate and confirm it ,
and this number of days will be no prejudice to any righ
teous sentence. The Emperor approved of the proposal,
and immediately ordered such a law to be written, and eon-
firmed it with his own hand. Then St. Ambrose absolved
him from his bonds, and the Emperor took courage to enter
into the Church : but he would neither stand nor kneel,
while he made supplication to the Lord, but fell upon his
face to the earth, using those words of David, " My soul
cleaveth to the ground, quicken thou me according to thy
word ;" and tearing his hair, and beating his forehead, and
watering the pavement with drops of tears, with these in
dications of sorrow he prayed for pardon. And so when
the time of the oblation came, he was admitted again to
make his offering at the holy table."
I have related this matter at full length in Theodoret's
words, because, as he there observes, it is such an illus
trious instance of the virtue both of the bishop and the Em
peror, showing the freedom and flaming fervour of the one,
and a great condescension, obedience, and purity of faith,
in the other. Theodoret adds, " That when the Emperor was
returned to Constantinople, he was pleased to say, he had
now learned the difference between an emperor and a bi
shop; he had now at last found a guide to show him
what was truth : for Ambrose alone was worthy the name
K2

!32 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
of a bishop. So useful an impression, says our authoT,
does a reproof or admonition make, when given by a man
of shining virtue."
After this it is needless to relate any later instances of
this kind of discipline exercised upon princes: but it may
be proper to remind the reader here again of that neces
sary distinction between the greater and lesser excommuni
cation, the former of which separates a criminal from all
manner of society with the faithful, the other only from com
munion and society iu holy things in the Church; and to
observe with many learned men, that these excommunica
tions of princes now mentioned, never went further than to
a prudent admonition, and suspension of them from the
sacrament and the holy offices of the Church. St. Ambrose,
says BishopBuckeridge,1 in answer to Bellarmin, did plainly
prohibit Theodosius from entering the church, and parta
king of the sacraments ; but he neither delivered him to
Satan, nor reduced him into the number of publicans
or pagans, nor separated him from all society and com
munion with the faithful. If Bellarmin spake properly
of the greater excommunication, the proof of a doubtful
matter lies upon him ; if only of the lesser excommunica
tion, or suspension, which forbids men entranee into the
Church, and communion in the sacramehts, we do not deny
but that Theodosius was so excommunicated by St. Am
brose. For St. Ambrose told him,2 he durst not offer the
sacrifice, if he was present. He thought he saw him in a
vision come to the Church, and then he durst not celebrate
because of his presence. He could not accept his oblation,
till he had power to offer, and till his offering would he
acceptable to God. He suspended him therefore from the

1 JoanRoffens.de Potest. Papae Temporali. lib. ii. cap. xxxix.p. 687.
In his aperte prohibet Ambrosius Theodosium ab ingressu ecclesiae et com-
munione sacramentorum, sed nee Satanae traditnec in numerum publicanorum
et ethnicoruin redigit, nee ccetu et communione fidelium separat. &c. See
Dr. Barrow of the Pope's Supremacy, p. 12. 2 Ambros.
Ep. xxviii. ad Theodos. Offerre non audeo sacrificium, si volueris assister.o.
—Venisse visus es ad ecclesiam,. sed mihi sacrificium offerre non licuit.—
Tunc offeres,. cum sacrificandi acceperis facultatem, quando hostia tua ac-
septa sit Deo.

CHAP. HI. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 133
sacrament, but did not lay upon him the Anathema, or
greater excommunication. Bishop Taylor takes excommu
nication in this sense, when he says,1 " If we consult the
doctrine and practices of the Fathers in the primitive and
ancient Churches, we shall find that they never durst think
of excommunicating kings. The first supreme prince, that
ever was excommunicated by a bishop, was Henry the em
peror by Pope Hildebrand. He adds, that there is one por
tion of excommunication, which is denying to administer the
holy communion to princes of a scandalous and evil life ;
and concerning this there is no question but the bishop not
only may, but in some cases must do it. Christ says, Give
not that which is holy unto dogs, and cast not pearls be
fore swine. Whatsoever is in the ecclesiastical hand by
divine right, is as applicable to him that sits upon the
throne, as to him that sits upon the dunghill." But then he
says one thing, which, as I conceive, contradicts this : viz.2
" That this refusing must be only by admonition and cau
tion, by fears and denunciations evangelical, by telling him
his unfitness to communicate, and his danger if he do : but
if after this separation by way of sentence and proper minis
try, the prince will be communicated, the bishop has nothing
else to do, but to pray and weep and willingly to minister."
This not only contradicts what he just says before, that a
bishop is obliged in duty to deny to administer the commu
nion to princes of a scandalous and evil life, but is directly
contrary to the doctrine and practice of St. Chrysostom
and St. Ambrose, who profess they would rather die than
give the communion to a prince that was utterly incapable
and unworthy of it. r
Sect. 6.— In what Cases the greater Excommunication was forborn for
I the Good of the Church.
Yet as to what concerns the greater excommunication, it
is certain that in some cases it was forborn, not only with

1 Taylor. Duct. Dubitant! lib. iii. cap. iv. p. 604 s Tay
lor. Ibid. p. COS. See also his Worthy Communicant chap. v. sect. vi. p. 487.

134 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
relation to princes, but the people also. For prudence
directed them to do every thing for the good of the Church,
and to use this severe weapon only to edification, and not
to destruction. And therefore when- it was apparent, or
but highly probable, that the intemperate and indiscreet
use of it might do more harm than good to the Church,
there both reason and charity directed them to waive the
use of it, for fear of rooting up the wheat with the tares
before the proper time of judgment. As to princes, Dr.
Barrow in a few words, which contain a great deal of an
cient history, has further observed,1 " That though there
were many sovereign princes in the primitive Church", who
were heretics and enemies to true religion, yet no ancient
pope seems to have been of opinion that they might excom
municate them. For if they might, why did not Pope
Julius or Pope Liberius excommunicate Constantius, the
great favourer of the Arians? How did Julian himself es
cape the censure of Liberius? Why did not Damasus
thunder against Valens, that fierce persecutor of the Ca
tholics? Why did not Damasus censure the Empress
Justina, the patroness of Arianism ? Why did not Siricius
censure Theodosius for that bloody fact, for which St.
Ambrose denied him the communion ? How was it that
Pope Leo, that stout and high pope, had not the heart to
correct Theodosius Junior in his way, who was the sup
porter of his adversary Dioscorus, and the obstinate pro
tector of the second Ephesine Council, which that pope so
much detested ? Why did not that pope rather compel that
Emperor by censures, than supplicate him by tears ? How
did so many popes connive at Theodoric and other princes
professing Arianism at their door ? Why did not Simplicius
or Felix thus punish the Emperor Zeno, the supplanter of
the Council of Chalcedon, for which they had so much zeal?
Why did neither Felix, nor Gelasius, nor Symmnchus, nor
Hormisdas excommunicate the Emperor Anastasius, yea
did not so much, Pope Gelasius says, as touch his name,
for countenancing the oriental bishops in their schism and

1 Barrow of the Pope's Supremacy, p. 12.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 135
refractory non-compliance with the papal authority? Those
popes did indeed clash with their emperor, but they ex
pressly deny, that they did condemn him with others whom
he did favour. We, says Pope Symmachus, did not ex
communicate you, O Emperor,1 but Acacius. If you mingle
yourself, you are not excommunicated by us, but by your
self. And says Gelasius,3 if the emperor is pleased to join
himself with those that are condemned, that cannot be
imputed to us. Wherefore Baronius doth ill,3 in affirming
Pope Symmachus to have anathematized Anastasius;
whereas that pope plainly denied it even in those words,
which are cited to prove it, being rightly read : for they
are corruptly written in Baronius and Binius ; Ego* which
hath no sense, or one contradictory to his former assertion,
being put for Nego, which is good sense, and agreeable to
what he and the other popes do affirm in relation to that
matter ; — that they did not pretend to anathematize the
emperor with other heretics whom they so condemned."
Indeed there were three reasons why the Ancients forbore
to anathematize sovereign princes. One was that, which
has just now been mentioned, because they thought they,
had no power to excommunicate them in such manner, but
only to deny them the participation of the eucharist. Ano
ther reason was, that heretical princes did in effect excom
municate themselves by deserting the Church, and joining
with heretics, and therefore the Church had no reason to
pronounce Anathema against them. A third reason was,
that the doing so might have done more harm than good
to the Church, by irritating and exasperating the minds of
heretical princes to persecute the Church with greater ma-

1 Symmach. Ep. vii. Nos te non excommunicavimus, sed Acacium. — Si
temisces, non a nobis, sed a teipso excommunicatus es. 2 Gelas.
Ep. iv. Si isti placet se miscere damnatis, nobis non potest imputari.
8 Baron, an. 503. n. xvii. * Symmach. Ep. vii. Dicis quod,
mecum conspirante senatu, excommunicaverim te. Ista quidem ego, sed
tfationabiliter factum a decessoribus meis sine dubio subsequor. So Baro
nius and Binius read it, " Ista quidem ego ; " but the true reading is, ' Ista
quidem nego, I deny that I excommunicated you." And yet Labee retains that
corrupt reading without any remark upon it. Con. torn. iv. p. 1298.

136 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
lice, and thereby many weak members of the Church might
have been scandalized and offended. Therefore Bishop
Buckeridge says,1 " In such cases where princes are fierce
and cruel, and impatient of reproof and indignity, it were
perhaps better to abstain from the severity of the lesser ex
communication as well as the greater, rather than for a
bishop to provoke an armed fury to turn itself both upon
him and the Church: it were better to keep the sword in
the sheath, than to unsheath it to the detriment and de
struction of the Church and religion. Therefore admitting
that of right kings and emperors might be excommunicated,
yet the expediency of the thing is a very different question,
and remains yet not perfectly resolved, whether it be for
the advantage of the Church, to use such severity against
her patrons, her defenders, and her advocates, that is, em
perors and kings."
And this consideration of expediency made St. Austin
and others determine, not only in the case of kings, but the
people also, that when the whole multitude were involved
in the same crime, either by actual commission, or abetting1,
or applauding the practice of it, that then the severity of
excommunication, especially in the highest degree, could
not be used toward them with any sort of prudence, for fear
it should have either no effect, or a very bad one. When a
single criminal is separated by discipline from the society
of the Church, the being avoided by the rest is a proper
way to bring him to shame : but when the whole society,
or a considerable part of it is involved in a common crime,
there is no possibility of putting such a multitude of cri
minals out of countenance, because they will encourage
and bear up one another: and therefore in that case to ex
ercise severity of discipline upon them, is only to make it
despised by them, and throw the Church into schisms and
convulsions, by the opposition of the turbulent and factious,
and to scandalize the weak and injudicious, who will be lead
away by the powerful side, and perish by rooting out the

1 Joan. Roffens de Potestate Papa in Temporalibus. lib. ii. cap. xxxix.
p. 9dl.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 137
tares before the time. St. Austin argues this matter fre
quently with the Donatists, who were for having a Church,
without spot and wrinkle upon earth, and for rooting out
the tares wherever they found them, whatever consequen
ces might atterid it. Though, he observes, they did not
keep to their own rule ; for they tolerated one Optatus Gil-
donianus, a most infamous man, noted for his villanies over
all Afric, and did not excommunicate liim, for fear he should
have earried off a multitude with him, and have broken their
communion by new schisms and subdivisions among them
selves. St. Austin1 does not blame them for this, but only
objects it to them as an argument ad hominem, to shew
them, that they ought not to blame the Church for doing
that in necessity, which they themselves were forced to do
upon the like occasion. As to the practice of the Church
he freely owns, she was forced many times to tolerate the
tares among the wheat, when they were grown numerous
and it was dangerous to eradicate them by the rough means
of severe discipline, for fear of overturning the Church,
and destroying its unity and peace by dangerous schisms, and
scandalizing more weak souls that way than they could hope
to gain by the other. It was so in Cyprian's time, he says,
and it was so in his own. He often repeats and urges upon
this occasion that famous passage of Cyprian in his Book
De Lapsis, where speaking of the reasons of God's visiting
the Church with that terrible persecution, he plainly inti
mates, that such numbers both of the clergy and laity had
corrupted their morals, that good men could do nothing but
mourn, and keep themselves as well as they could from par
taking in their sins : but that could not then be done by the
exercise of discipline, by reason of the numbers of all
orders that were to be subjects of it ; many of those who
were to exercise it, being themselves the most obnoxious;

1 Aug. Ep. 164. ad Emeritam Donatistam. Non ergo reprehendimus, si
eo tempore, ne multos secum excommunicatus traheret, et communionem
vestram schismatis furore praecideret, eum excommunicare noluistis. Vid.
Aug. Ep. 170. ad Severinum. Ep. 171 ad Donatistas. Cont. Epist. Parme
nian. lib. ii. cap. 2. Optatum Gildonianum decennalem totius Africse gemitum,
tanquam sacerdotem atque collegam honorantes in communione tenue-
runt, &c.

138 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
and it was not to be expected, that they should be very
forward to put in execution. So that the disease being grown
too obstinate and strong to be cured this way, there remained
no other remedy but the severity of a divine judgment, to
rectify by an extraordinary scourge, what human power
Could not do in the ordinary way at such a juncture, "Ihe
Lord," says Cyprian,1 " was therefore minded himself to
prove his family, and because a long peace had corrupted
the discipline that was given us from heaven, the divine
judgment stepped in to raise up that faith, which was fallen
and almost laid asleep. All men's minds were set upon aug
menting their estates ; and forgetting what the first Chris
tians did in the times of the Apostles, and what they^ought
always, to do, they by an insatiable ardour of covetousness
only studied to increase their fortunes. There was ne true
religion or devotion in the priests, no sincere faith in
the ministers, no mercy in their works, no discipline
in their morals. Effeminacy and fraud were reigning
vices both in men and women. They made no scruple
to marry with infidels, and prostitute the members of
Christ to the heathen. They were equally given both to
profane swearing, and perjury, to contemn their governors
with swelling pride, to curse themselves with venomous
tongues, and with inveterate hatred and animosities to
quarrel with one another. Many bishops, who ought to
have been both monitors and examples to the rest, forsook
their divine calling, to take upon them the management of
secular affairs ; and leaving their sees, and deserting their
people, they rambled about other provinces, seeking for
such business as would bring them in gain and advantage.
In the mean time they suffered the poor of the Church to
starve, whilst they themselves minded nothing but heaping
up riches, and getting of estates by fraud and violence, by
usury and extortion. What did we not deserve to suffer for
such sins as these? Our crimes required, that for the

•Cypr. de Lapsis. p. 123. Dominus probari familiam suam voluit, et quia
traditum nobis divinitus disciplinam pax longa corruperat, jacentem fidem,
et pcne dixerim dormientem ceiisura coelestis erexit, &c.

CHAP. II1.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 139
correction of our manners, and the trial of our faith, God
should bring us to severer remedies."
Cyprian here plainly intimates, that in such a corrupt state
of affairs the discipline of the Church could not be main
tained, or be rightly put in execution. He was forced to
endure these ebllegues of his, who were covetous, rapa
cious, extortioners, usurers, deserters, fraudulent and cruel.
It was impossible to exercise Church-censures with any
good effect, when there were such multitudes both of priests
and people ready to oppose them, and distract the Church
into a thousand schisms, rather than suffer themselves to be
curbed or reformed that way : and therefore when no other
practicable method was left the divine censure was neces
sary, as the last and only remedy.
And this is what St. Austin so often tells the Donatists,
that the Church followed the example of Cyprian in this
matter.1 " When we are not permitted to excommunicate
offenders for the sake of the peace and tranquillity of the
Church, we do not therefore neglect the Church, but only
tolerate what we would not, to obtain what we would have,
using the caution of our Lord's command, lest, whilst we
gather out the tares before the time, we should with them
root up the wheat also : following also the example and
precept of St. Cyprian, who endured with a view and
regard to peace, many of his collegues, who were usurers,
defrauders, rapacious, and yet he was not infected with
their contagion." So he says again, " The evil is some
times to be endured for the sake of the good ; as the
Prophets tolerated those against whom they spake so many
hard things, and did not forsake the communion of the
sacraments used by that people because of them ; as our
Lord himself tolerated wicked Judas to the last, and per-

1 Aug. Lib. ad Donatistas post Collationem. cap 20. Ubi hoc facere gratia
' pacis et tranquillitatis ecclesiae non permittimur, non tamen ideo ecclesiam .
negligimus, sed toleramus quae nolumus, ut perveniamus quo volumus,
utentes cautela pracepti Dominici, ne cum voluerimus ante tempus colligere
Zizania, simul eradicimus et triticum : utentes etiam et exemplo et praecepto
.Beati Cypriani, qui collegas suos fceneratores, fraudatores, raptores, pacis
contemplatione pertulit tales, nee eorum contagione factus est talis.

140

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

mitted him to communicate in the same holy supper with
innocent disciples; as the Apostles tolerated those, who
preached Christ out of envy, which is the Devil's sin ; and
us Cvprian tolerated the covetousness of his fellow-bishops,
which he himself, according to the Apostle, styles idolatry."
St. Austin frequently urges this example of Cyprian in
other places.1 And he argues further for the necessity of
the practice from the reason and nature of the thing itself
and from the precepts of the Gospel. In his Book against
Parmenian he shews at large when excommunication or
anathematizing is to be used, and when not. " It may be
used, when there is no danger of rooting up the wheat
together with the tares :9 that is, when a man's crime is
so notorious to all, and appears so execrable to all, that he
has no defenders, or not so many or so powerful as to make
a schism, then the severity of discipline ought not to sleep,
for then it will be effectual to correct his wickedness, when
all charitably and unanimously join to confirm the sentence.
And then it is, that there is no danger hereby of prejudicing
peace and unity, or of doing harm to the wheat, when the
whole multitude or cono-regration of the Church is free from
the crime that is anathematized. For then they will be
ready to assist the bishop in his correction, and not the
criminal in his resistance. Then they will abstain from his
society for his good, and no one will so much as eat with
him, not out of enmity, but for brotherly coercion. Then
he also will be smitten with fear, and cured by shame, when
he sees himself anathematized by the whole Church, and
can find no company to encourage him to rejoice in his
crime, or help him to insult the virtuous. And therefore,
he says, the Apostle requires, that such an one's punishment
or censure should be inflicted of many. For a censure is of
no advantage, except when such an one is corrected, as

1 Aug. ep. xlviii. ad Vincent, p. 66. Non propter malos boni deserendi,
sed propter bonos mali tolerandi sunt, &c. Sicut toleravit Cyprianus col-
legarum avaritiam, quam secundum Apostolum appellat idololatriam. See to
the same purpose Aug. de Baptismo. lib. iv. cap. 9. Cont. Epist. Parmen. lib.
iii. cap. 2. , * Aug. cont. Epist. Parmen. lib'
iii. cap. ii.p. 23.

CHAF. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 14f
has not a multitude on his side to uphold him.1 But when
the same disease has seized a multitude, good men in that
case can do nothing further but grieve and mourn. And
therefore the same Apostle, when he found a multitude
among the Corinthians, who were defiled with unelean-
ness and lasciviousness and fornication, writing to them in
his second epistle, he does not command them, " with
" such not to eat," as he had done before : for they were
many, and he could not now say, " If any brother be a
notorious fornicator, or an idolater, or covetous, or the like,
with such an one no not to eat." But he says, " Lest when
I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I
shall bewail many who have sinned, and have not repented
of the uncleanness and lasciviousness, and fornication
which they have committed :" threatening- them by his
bewailing, that they should be punished by the divine
scourge, rather than that punishment which consisted in
men's withdrawing from their society. His mourning would
obtain of the Lord a scourge to correct them, who could
not now by reason of their multitude be corrected in such
manner, as that others should abstain from their society
and make them ashamed, as it may be done in the case of
a single brother, who is noted for a crime, from which all
the rest are free. And indeed when the contagion of sin
has invaded a whole multitude, it is then necessary for God
to visit them out of mercy with the severity of his own
divine censure: for in that case exhortations to avoid the
company of ••.sinners are not only vain, but pernicious and
sacrilegious, because impious and proud, tending more to
disturb good men that are weak, than to correct the stub
bornness and, animosity of the evil." And therefore he ob
serves,2 " that St. Paul treated the single incestuous Co-

1 Neque enim potest esse salubris a multis eorreptio, nisi cum ille corri-
pitur, qui non habet sociam multitudinem. Cum verd idem morbus plurimos
occupaverit, nihil aliud bonis restat quam dolor et ge'mitus.
3 Aug. lib. ad Donatistas post Collatibnem. cap. xxi. Non eis praecepit
corporalem separationem : multi quippe erant, non sicut ille unus, quiuxorem
patris sui habuit, quemliberiorecorreptione et excommunicationejudicatdig-
nura. Longe aliter iste, aliter vitiosa curanda et sananda est multitudo, ne

142

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

rinthian, and the multitude that denied the resurrection in
a diff'erent way : he did not command the Corinthians to
make a corporal separation from them, for they were many,
not like that one, who had married his father's wife, whom
he judged worthy of a freer censure and excommunication.
There was one way to be taken with a single person, ano
ther to cure and heal a multitude, lest if the people were
divided from one another by parties, the wheat also should
be rooted up by the mischief of schism. And therefore the
Apostle does not enjoin those, who believed the resurrection,
to separate corporally from those, who did not believe it in
the same people, though he never ceases to separate them
spiritually, by frequent admonitions to beware of joining in
their impious opinions." He says further,1 " When such
evil men are tolerated in the Church, good men, who are
displeased with them, and know not how to mend them,
neither dare to root out the tares before the time of the
harvest, for fear they should root up the wheat also, do not
communicate with their wicked deeds, but with the altar
of Christ: so that they are not only not polluted by them
but deserve divine praise, because rather than the name
of Christ should be blasphemed by horrible schisms, they
tolerate for the good of unity, what they otherwise hate for
the love of equity.," This he shews to be a thing praise
worthy from various examples both of the Old and New
Testament, and the practice of our Saviour and his Apostles,
which are too numerous and long to be here inserted. He
says more briefly in another Epistle,3 " that the wicked do

forte si plebs a plebe separetur, per schismatis nefas etiam triticum eradi-
cetur. Eos ergo qui jam credebant resurrectionem rnortuorum, ab his qui
eam in eodem populo non credebant, non corporaliter Apostolus separat, sed
tamen spiritaliter separare non cessat.
1 Aug. Ep, 162. ad Episc. Donatistas. p. 280. Quibus displicent mali, et
eos emendare non possunt, neque ante tempus messis audent zizania eradi-
care, ne simul eradicent et triticum, non factis eorum, sed altari Christi
communicant: ita ut non solum non ab eis maculentur, sed etiam divinis
verbis laudari praedicarique mereantur, quoniam ne nomen Christi per hor-
ribilia schismata blasphemetur, pro bono unitatis tolerant, quod pro bono
eequitatis oderunt.
* Aug. Ep. 161. ad Emeritum. Cognitos malos bonis non obesse in ec-

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 143
not hurt the good in the Church, though they be notorious
ly evil, if either there be no power to cast them out of com
munion, or some considerations of preserving peace hinder
the doing of it." And again,1 " Although there be some
whom we cannot correct, and necessity compels us' for the
soke of others to allow them to communicate in the divine
sacraments, yet we do not communicate with them in their
sins, which is never done but by favouring and consenting
to them. For we only tolerate them in the Church as tares
among the wheat, and as chaff' mingled with the corn in
this floor of unity, and as bad fish among the good enclo
sed in the nets of the word and sacraments, till the time of
harvest or winnowing or drawing to shore comes ; lest with
them we should root up the wheat : or by separating the
corn in the floor before the time, rather expose it to the
fowls of the air to devour it, than purge it to be Jaid up in
the garner ; or should break the nets by schisms, and, by
over-abundaut caution to cast out the bad fish, should open
a way of pernicious liberty for the rest to return into the sea
again. For this reason our Lord made use of these and
the like parables to confirm the forbearance of his servants
lest if the good should think themselves to blame for min
gling with the evil, they should either destroy the weak by
human and hasty dissensions, or themselves become weak
and perish. He pursues the same argument at large in his
epistle to Macrobius,2 and his Books against Gaudentius,*
and many other places : but what I have already produced,
abundantly shews his sense of this matter, and not only his
sense, but the concurrent opinion and practice of the whole
African Church both in the time of Cyprian, and the Colla
tion of Carthage, to which. he refers. So that upon the

clesiS, si eos a communione prohibendi aut potestas desit, aut aliqua ratio
conservandae pacis impediat.
1 Ep. 166. Quos corrigere non valemus, etiamsi necessitas cogit pro-
salute cseterorum ut Dei sacramenta nobiscum communicent, peccatis tamen
eorum non communicamus, quod non fit nisi consentiendo et favendo, &c.
* Ans. Ep..255. s Cont. Gaudent.lib. iii.cap. 3, 5, 9,
&c. It. Ep. lxix. ad Restitutum, et Brevic.Collationis. Die iii. cap. 8. Vid.
Collat. Carth. die iii. n. 258. et 265. et Aug. de Fide et Oper. cap. 4. et 6.

144 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
whole matter their opinion appears plainly to be this, that
when a multitude of sinners in the Church made it dange
rous to exercise discipline upon them, it was more expedient
to endure the bad among the good, rather than by trying to
purge them out by the severity of censures, to endanger
breaking of the nets, and involve the Church in terrible
schisms, to the scandal of the weak, and no benefit to the
Church, whilst together with the tares they rooted up the
wheat also. And this practice in difficult times, is generally
allowed to be expedient by modern writers, among whom
the learned reader may consult Richerius,1 Estius and Lyra,
Grotius2 and Bishop Taylor,3 and Dr. Whitby,* and Rivet:
For I know of none but Peter Martyr,6 who maintains the
contrary opinion against St. Austin. But I return to the
Ancients and their practice.
Sect. 7. — The Innocent never involved among the Guilty in ecclesiastical
Censures. The Original and Novelty of Popish Interdicts.
Where, among other prudent cautions observed in this
matter, we may remark their wisdom and piety in managing
this spiritual sword, so as it might affect offenders only, and
not involve the innocent and guiltless in the same condem
nation. That, which has been so common and so tyrannical
a practice with the popes of later ages, to lay whole
Churches and nations under interdict, and forbid them
the use of all sacraments, for the faults of a single criminal,
was so much unknown to the Ancients, that St. Austin
was amazed, when he heard of a young rash African
bishop, who in his warm zeal, for the single offence of one
Classicianus, and that not evidently proved, had anathe
matized both him and his whole family together. Complaint |

> Richer, de potest. Eccles. in Reb. Temporal, lib. iii. L. iv. n 7. p. 291.
Estius in 2 Cor. x. 6. Lyra Gloss, in Mat. xiii.
s Grot, in 2 Cor- x. 6. Neque enim duris remediis locus est, ubi tota
ecclesia in morbo cubat. s >t. „_,.,. r,,,. ,., ..:
-.„ laylor Uuct. lib. m. cap.iv.
F\T. Whitby Protest. Reeoncil. par. ii. p 257 '
Rivet. Synops. Pur. Theol. Disp. xlviii. n. 30.
" Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. lib. v. cap. v. n. 12. p. 781.

CHAP. III.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 145
of the thing being made to St. Austin, he thus writes to
the bishop, to expostulate with him upon the fact in these
terms.1 " Being in great concern of mind, and my heart
fluctuating as in a tempest within me, I could not but write
to your charity, to desire you to inform me, if you have
any certain grounds of reason or authority of Scripture for
your practice, how a son can rightly be anathematized for
his father's sin, or a wife for her husband's, or a servant for
his master's ; or why a child that is yet unborn, if he hap
pens to be born in the family, while it lies under Anathema,
may not have the benefit of the laver of regeneration in the
article of death ? For this is not a corporal punishment,
with which we read some despisers of God were slain with
their whole families, though the families were not partakers
in their Crimes. Then indeed mortal bodies, which must
otherwise shortly have died, were slain, to strike a terror
into the living. But spiritual punishment, of which it is
said, ' Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound
in heaven, this also binds souls, of whom it is written, the
soul of the father is mine, and the soul of the son is mine :
the soul that sinneth, it shall die.' For my part I can give
no just reason for such Anathemas, and therefore I have
never dared to use them, even when I have been most highly
provoked by the clamorous crime of some, committed inso
lently against the Church. If God has revealed it unto you,
I despise not your youth, but shall be ready to learn, how
we can give a just reason either to God or man, for inflic
ting spiritual punishments upon innocent souls for the sin
of another, from whom they derived no original sin, as they
do from Adam, in whom all have sinned. But if you can
giveno good reason for it, why do you that, out of an un
advised and precipitate commotion of mind, in defence of
which, if any man ask you a reason, you have nothing to
answer." From this decent reproof given to the head-strong

1 Aug. Ep. lxxv. ad Auxilium. Non mediocriter aestuans cogitationibus
magna cordis tempestate fluctuantibus, apud charitatem tuam tacere non
potui: ut si habes de hSc re sententiam, certis, rationibus vel scripturarura
testiuioniis exploratam, nos quoque docere di'gneris : quomodo recte ana-
thematizetur pro patris peccato filius, &c.
VOL. VI. L

14& THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
passion of this young bishop, and his intemperate zeal in
anathematizihg a whole family for the crime of the master
only we may conclude there was no such allowed practice
in the Church in St. Austin's time, as excommunicating
the innocent with the guilty, though the innocent might
have some near relation to, or unavoidable dependence on
the offending parties : much less was it customary then to
lay whole bodies, Churches or nations, under interdict, and
forbid them the use of the sacraments, merely to curb or
restrain the contumacy of others, of which they were
wholly innocent, and no ways partakers. Which was a
monstrous and novel abuse of discipline, peculiar to the
tyrannical times of the Papacy, and utterly unknown to
former ages.1 Baronius indeed brings a single instance of
it out of the Annals of France, where it is said, that Pope
Agapetus, Anno 535, threatened King Clotarius toputhis
kingdom under interdict, unless he made satisfaction for a
barbarous and sacrilegious murder committed by him in the
church upon one Gualter de Yvetot, who carried the Pope's
letters of recommendation to him. But as this story is only
told by modern writers such as Du Haitian, whom Baronius
quotes, and Gaguinus, Gillius and Tillius, added by Spon-
danus, and has not the authority of any ancient writers;
and has something also in the narration itself, which destroys
its credit with judicious men ; Spondanus owns,2 there are
many learned men who reject it as a fable, prevailing only
by the credulity of the French nation for many ages. And
therefore it is not worthy to be mentioned as a piece of
ancient history in the case before us.
Some date the original of interdicts from the time of
Alexander III. about the year 1160. And indeed about this
time they began to be very frequent. Habertus says,* Mo-
rinus carries them a little higher to the time of Pope Hilde-
brand or Gregory VII. who is most likely to be the father
of them,* for they are sometimes mentioned in his epistles.
1 Baron. An. 535. i- A i| endice. torn. vii. p. 9.
s Spondan. Epitom. Baron, an. 535. n. 18. " Habert.
Arohicrat. p. 746. * Greg. vii. lib. i. ep. SI. lib. ii. ep. 5.

CHAP. III.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 147
Habertus himself pretends to make them as ancient as St,
Basil. But the place1 out of Basil's Epistles, says no more,
but that when a whole Church make themselves partakers
of another man's sins they may be censured all together.
Which is very far from the indiscriminating censure of an
interdict, which condemns a whole nation, and that com-:
monly for no crime, but rather their duty, for adhering pon-r
scientiously to their natural allegiance due to their lawful
sovereigns, when the Pope is pleased to excommunicate and
depose them under pretence of the plenitude of ecclesi
astical power, as any one, that would write the history of
interdicts, might easily demonstrate. Whatever St. Basil
meant, it is certain he had not this in his thoughts: neither
was it the usual practice of the Church to anathematize
whole bodies of men, though guilty, unless it was for
terror's sake, as has been shewn in the foregoing
section. Sect. 8,— The Danger of excommunicating innocent Persons.
As to innocent persons, all care imaginable was taken
that the censures of the Church should not be abused by
any indiscreet application of them to the condemnation of
the. guiltless.- In which case an unjust sentence was
thought to recoil upon the head of him that executed it.
Thus Firmillian told Pope Stephen,2 " that in cutting
off others, who did not deserve it, he cut off himself. Be
notdeceived, for heis the true schismatic, who makes himself
an apostate from the communion of the ecclesiastical unity.
For while you think you can excommunicate all others, you
only excommunicate yourself from them." In like manner
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, answered Pope Victor, when
he threatened to excommunicate him and all the Asiatic
Churches for not observing Easter in the same manner as
they did at Rome : he was not afraid of his menaces, he
1 Basil, ep. 244.
2 Firmil. Ep. lxxv. ap. Cypr. p. 228. Excidisti teipsum. Noli te fallere,
Siquidem ille est vere sohismaticus, qui se a communione ecclesiastica?
( unitatis apostatam fecerit. Dum enim putas omnes a te abstineri posse,
sjolum te ab omnibus abstinuisti.
L 2

148 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
told him,1 for he had learned of those that were greater
than he, to obey God rather than man. And Eusebius adds,
" That when Victor persisted still in this headstrong reso
lution, Irenaaus and several other bishops wrote very sharply
to him,-TrXr,K7£K(Jr£Pov,-reproving him for his unwarrantable
abuse of the Church's censures. It is a noted saying m the
Index to the works of Pope Gregory I.2 upon this account,
" If any one excommunicate another unjustly, he does not
condemn him, but himself." Though the Romanists, com
monly magnify another saying of his, transcribed into the
Canon-Law,3 " That the sentence of the shepherd is to be
dreaded, whether it be just or unjust." Which can certainly
never be true, but in a very doubtful case. It is much more
to the purpose, what Gratian in the same question alleges
from St. Austin,4 " That a man had need be very careful
whom he binds on earth : for unjust bonds will be loosed
by the justice of heaven : and not only so, but turn to the
condemnation of him that imposes them : for though rash
judgment often hurts not him, who is rashly judged :5 yet
the rashness of him, that judges rashly, will turn to his own
disadvantage. In the mean time it is no detriment to a
man,6 to have his name struck out of the Diptychs of the
Church by human ignorance, if an evil conscience do
not blot him out of the book of life." Thus far St.
Austin in several places, alleged by Gratian, to which
may be added what he cites out of the foresaid place

1 Polycrat. Ep. ad Victor, ap. Euseb. lib. v. c. 24. Oi irrvpofiai siri
roig KaTairX-qaaoiikvoig, &c. Vide Aug. de Vera Religione. cap. vi.
8 Greg. lib. ii. ep. 26. Si quis illicite quenquam excommunicat, semet—
ipsum, non ilium condemnat.
3 Greg. Horn. xxvi. in Evang. ap. Grat. decret. caus. xi. Qusst. iii. c. 1.
Sententia Pastoris, sive justa, sive injusta fuerit, timenda est.
* Aug. Ser. xvi. de verbis Domini ap. Grat. ibid. c. xlviii. Ut juste alliges,
vide. Nam injusta vincula dirumpit justitia.
s Aug. de Serm. Dom. in Monte, lib. ii. cap. xxix. ap. Grat. ibid. cap.
xlix. Temerarium judicium pleruraque nihil nocet ei, de quo temere judica-
tur. Eiautem, qui temere judicat, ipsa temeritas necesse est, utnoceat.
6 Aug. Ep. 137. Quid obest homini, quod ex illS. tabula non vult eum
recitari huinana ignorantia, si de libro vivorum non eum delet iniqua consci-
entia? Ap. Gratian. ibid. cap. 50.

CHAP. 1II.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 149
¦of Gregory,1 " That he deprives himself of the power of
binding and loosing, who exercises it according to his arbi
trary will, and not according to the deserts of those that are
under his government." He means, that an excommunica
tion, unjustly pronounced, is of no force against one that
deserves it not ; neither is the absolution of an impenitent
sinner any better ; because they are both done clave err ante,
by a misapplication of the keys, in which case as the Gloss
upon the Law words it,2 " the party so bound is not bound
before God : for it often happens, that by this means a
man is excommunicated out of the Church militant, who
notwithstanding is in the Church triumphant." And such
excommunications, says Cardinal Tolet,3 bind neither be
fore God nor the Church.

Sect. 9.— No one to be excommunicated without being first heard, and
allowed to speak for himself.
Now to prevent this inconvenience, the ancient Church
prescribed several useful rules to be observed in the matter
of excommunication. For besides that ordinarily no one
was to be censured without a previous admonition, as has
been noted before,* it was likewise ordered, that no man
should be condemned in his absence, without being allowed
liberty to answer for himself, unless he contumaciously re
fused to appear. " Let ecclesiastical judges beware,"
says the Council of Carthage,5 " that they never pronounce
sentence against any one, that is absent, when his cause is
under debate: otherwise the sentence shall be void, and
they shall give an account of their action to the synod."
Upon this ground St. Austin refutes the censure,6 which the

1 Greg. Horn. xxvi. in Evang. ap. Grat. c. 60. Ipse ligandi atque sol
vendi potestate se privat, qui hanc pro suis voluntatibus, et non pro sub-
jectorum moribus exercet. Vid. Gelasium. ibid, ap Grat. c. 46.
'¦> Gloss, in extravagant. Joan. xxii. Tit. xiv. cap. v. p. 160.
s Tolet. Instruct. Sacerdot. lib. i. cap. 10. « Chap. ii. sect. 6.
» Con. Carth. iv. can. 30. Caveant judices ecclesiastic], ne absente eo,
cujus causa ventilatur, sententiam profera^it, quia irrita erit, et causara in
synodo pro facto dabunt. Vid. plura ap. Gratian. caus. iii. quaest. 0.
6 Aug. Ep. clxii. p. 2?V./ Si nee vituperari, nee corripi, nisi iulerro-

150 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Donatists pretended to pass upon Cecilian, bishop of
Carthage, because he was absent, and never examined by
them before they proceeded to condemn him.
Sect. 10.— Nor without legal Conviction, either by his own Confession; or
credible Evidence of Witnesses, against whom there was no Exception j
or such Notoriety of the Fact as made a Man liable to Excommunication
ipso facto, without any formal Denunciation.
Another rule observed in this case was, that no one
should be excommunicated, unless he stood legally con
victed of his crime. Which might be three ways ; 1. by
his own confession, t-. By the credible evidence of such
witnesses, as could not justly be excepted against, or sus
pected of bearing false testimony. 3. By such notoriety of
the fact, as made a man liable to excommuniention ipso facto,
Without any further process or formal denunciation : as in
the case, of those that fell by offering sacrifice in time of
persecution: here was no need in this case either of their
own confession, or conviction by witnesses : for their crime
was notorious to all the world, and it needed no formal
process or examination of witnesses to condemn them;
neither was there any need of a formal sentence of excom
munication to be pronounced against them : for they stood
excommunicated ipso facto, as learned men style it;1 the
fact itself being evident and notorious to all, was sufficient
to declare them excommunicate, as having forfeited all
right to the privileges of Christian communion. In other
cases, where the matter was not so clear, they required
either the confession of the party himself, or the legal
evidence of unexceptionable witnesses. Thus St. Austin2

gatum Spiritus Sanctus voluit, quanto sceleratius non vituperati aut cor-
repti, sed omnino damnati sunt, qui de suis criminibus nihil absentes in-
terrogari potuerunt? It. Serra. xxii. de Verbis Apost. Damnatus est
Caecilianus, absens primo, deinde a traditoribus. &c.
1 Vid. Cave Prim. Christ, part iii. cap. v. p. 366.
8 Aug. Horn. 1. de Pcenitent. torn. x. p. 207. Nos a communione prohibere
quenquam non possumus nisi aut sponte confessum, aut in aliquo sive seculari
sive ecclesiastico judicio nominatum atque convictum. Quis enim sibi utrum-
que audeat assumere, ut cuiquam ipse sit et accusatoreyudex?

CHAP. III. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Ml
declares : " we cannot exclude any one from communion
except he either voluntarily confess his crime himself, or be
noted and convicted in some secular or eeclesiastical
judgment. . For who dare to assume to himself, to be
both accuser and judge?" " We are hot to exclude any
man," says Pope Innocent,1 " upon bare suspicions."
" Where the crime is not evident," says Origen,2 " we can
cast no man out of the Church, lest while we root out the
tares, we root up the wheat also." And the same reason is
given by St. Austin in the place now cited. Justinian3
confirmed this rule of the Church by a civil sanction, not
only forbidding all bishops and presbyters to segregate any
man from the communion before his crime was evidently
proved against him, but ordering such an one immediately
to be restored to communion, and the minister, who sus
pended him, to be suspended himself by his superior, " ut
quod injuste fecit, juste sustineat, that he may justly
suffer the same punishment, ivhieh he unjustly inflicted on
the other." As therefore they were not to excommunicate
a whole multitude, though their crimes were notorious ; so
neither were they to excommunicate a single criminal, unless
his crime could be made evident to the multitude, that they
might detest and abhor it : then the severity of discipline
was not to sleep,* ^according to St. Austin's rule :5 if the
criminal was accused and also convicted by evident proofs
and testimony before the judge, then the judge might pro
ceed against him lawfully, to punish, correct, excommuni
cate, or degrade him. But otherwise, without such legal con
viction, no bishop could suspend a clerk from communion,

1 Innoc. Ep. iii. cap. 4. Non facile quisquam ex suspicionibus absti
netur. Probatione cessante, vindictffi ratio conquieseit. s Orig.
Horn. xxi. in Josue. torn. i. p. 328.
3 Justin. Novel, cxxiii. c. 11. Omnibus autem episcopis et presbyteris
interdicimus, segrpgara aliquem a sacra communione, antequam causa
monstretur propter quam sanctae regula? hoc fieri jubent, &c.
* Aog. cont. Epist. Parmen. lib. iii. cap. 2. Quando cujusque crimen
notum est omnibus, et omnibus execrabile apparet  non dormiat severitas
discipline. 6 Aug. Ser. xxiv. de Verbis Apost. ap. Gratian.
Caus. xxiii. quaest. iv. cap. 11. Si judicandi potestatem accepisti, ec
clesiastica regula, si apud te accusatur, si veris documeiitis lestibusque
¦convincitur, coerce, corripe, excomnmnica, degrada.

152 THE AN1IQUIT1ES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
unless he contumaciously refused to appear to have his
cause examined before him. And this, St. Austin says,1
was determined in council for greater security against arbi
trary proceedings. And it is observable in this case, that
the canons never allowed3 the testimony of one single
witness as sufficient evidence to convict a criminal ; ground*
ing upon that rule in the divine law, " In the mouth of two
or three witnesses shall every word be established." Nay,
though it were a bishop or presbyter that accused any man,
barely upon his own knowledge, his testimony was not
sufficient ground to proceed against him to excommunication.
For as we have heard St. Austin say but just now, no man
could be both accuser and judge. And therefore it was
provided by the Council of Vaison,3 " that though a bishop
knew a man to be a criminal, yet if he alone was privy to
his crime, and could make no other proof -of it, he should not
so much as publish it, but deal privately with the man by
admonition to bring him to repentance. But if, notwith
standing his admonition, he would persist pertinacious, and
offer himself publicly to communicate, the bishop should
not have power to excommunicate or cast him wholly out
of the Church, but only enjoin him to recede for a time out
of respect to the bishop's person, whilst he continued in
the communion of all those, who knew nothing of his
offences." And even this was a greater deference paid to
the single testimony of a bishop, than was allowed in the
African Churches. For there, by a rule of the seventh
Council of Carthage, made in St. Austin's time,1 " if a man

1 Aug. Ep. cxxxvii. In episcoporum concilio constitutum est, nullum
clericum, qui nondum convictus est, suspendi a communione debere, nisi
ad causam suam examinandam se non prssentaverit.
2 Vid. Can. Apost. lxxv. Con. Ilerdense. ap. Crab, ex Ivone. lib. v.
" Con. Vasens. i. can. 8. Si tantum episcopus alieni sceleris se conscium
novit, quamdiu probare non potest, nihil proferat, sed cum ipso ad com-
punctionem ejus secretis correptionibus elaborct. Quod si correptus perti-
nacior fuerit, et se cpmmunioni publice ingesserit, etiam si episcqpus in
redarguendo illo, quem reum judicat, probatione deficiat, indemnatus licet
ab his qui nihil sciunt, secedere ad tempus pro persona maj oris auctoritatis
jubeatur, illo, quamdiu probari nihil potest, in communione omnium, prw-
terquara ejus qui eum reum judicat, permahente.
* Con. Carth. vii. can. v. Placuit, ut si quando episcopus dicit, aliquem

CHAP. 1 1 I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 153
confessed his crime to a bishop, and afterwards denied it,
the bishop was not to think he had any injury done him, if
his single evidence was not taken by his fellow-bishops to the
man's condemnation : and if in such a case the bishop pre
sumed to excommunicate him, upon a scruple of conscience,
that he could not communicate with such an one, the bishop
himself was not to communicate with other bishops, that he
might learn to be more cautious in saying that against any
man, which he could not prove by any other evidence but
his own testimony." So tender where these holy bishops
of condemning any man without sufficient and legal evi
dence to convict him. St. Austin, who was present in this
Council, tells a remarkable story1 of a case of this nature,
that happened between Boniface, one of his presbyters, and
a man that was accused by him. Having no sufficient
evidence, but only their single testimony on either side, he
would not determine the matter between them, but ordered
them both to go to the sepulchre of Felix, the martyr, in
hopes that the cause might be decided by some apparent
miracle and divine judgment, where human judgment could
not determine it, as he says he had known it done, in a case
pf theft at Milan. He adds, that both the ecclesiastical
and civil law forbad the condemning any man upon the
evidence of a single witness, as insufficient to convict him.
The ecclesiastical law we have already heard; and for the
civil law, it is probable he refers to a decree of Constantine,
nowr extant in the Theodosian Code,3 which precisely
enjoins all judges not to determine any cause upon the
evidence of a single witness, though it were even a senator

sibi soli proprium crimen fuisse confessum, atque ille neget : non putet ad
injuriam suam episcopus pertinere, quod ipsi soli non creditor : et si scrupulo
propria conscientiae se dicit neganti nolle communicare, quamdiu excom
municato non communicaverit suus episcopus, eidem episcopo ab aliis non
communicetur episcopis, ut magis caveat episcopus, ne dicat in quenquam
quod aliis docunientis convincea-e non potest. Vid. Cod. Afric. can. 133,
et 134. et Aug. Horn. xvi. de Verbis Dom.
' Aug. Ep. cxxxvii.
a Cod. Theod. lib. xi. tit. 39. de Fide Testium. leg. iii. Manifeste
sancimus, ut unius omnino testis responsio non audiatur, etiam si praeclara;
curias honore prasfulgeat.

154 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
that was the deponent. Which Gothofred compares to a
noted saying among the old Romans, related by Plutarch,
that it was not right to give credit to one witness, though
it were Cato himself that gave testimony. Whence Gotho
fred also with great reason concludes,1 that the law which
goes under the name of Constantine, at the end of the
Theodosian Code, allowing the single testimony of a bishop
to be good evidence, is a spurious law, though it be inserted
into the Capitular2 of Charles the Great, and Gratian's
Decree, because it contradicts all other laws both ecclesias
tical and civil upon this subject.
It is worth observing further, that to secure the innocence
of virtuous men from being unjustly traduced and censured,
there were many laws forbidding the testimony of heretics,
or other suspected and infamous, persons to be accepted in
judgment, of which because I have had occasion to dis
course elsewhere,3 I say no more in this place. But from
all, that has no w been said, it sufficiently appears, that though
the Ancients were very strict and severe in their discipline,
yet they were equally cautious, that the severity of it should
not affect the innocent, and every man was presumed
to be innocent till a just and legal proof could be
made against him: nor was this an harm to the Church, it
being better that some vicious men should escape, than that
virtuous men should be exposed to the greatest of all
punishments upon bare suspicion, or the aibitrary pleasure
of any one man ; for which reason also, as I have often
noted, the Church still allowed an appeal from the unjust
sentence of any bishop to the re-examination of a provincial
Council. Sect. 11 — Excommunication not ordinarily inflicted upon Minors or
Children under Age.
Another sort of persons, whom the censures of the Church
seldom or never touched, were minors, or children under
age: there being more proper punishments thought fit for
1 Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. xi. tit. xxxix. leg. 3 et lib xvi.
tit. xii. leg. i. p. 306. . capitular, lib. vi. cap. 281.
Grat. caus. xi. quaest. i. cap.. 36. 3 Book v_ d) ._ bec(_ fl>

CHAP. Itl.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 155
them, such as fatherly rebukes and corporal correction : and
to inflict the highest censures upon such, was rather
thought a lessening of authority, and bringing contempt
upon the discipline of the Church. Therefore Socrates
observes of Arsenius, the Egyptian abbot, that he was
never used to excommunicate any junior monks, but only
those that had made a- greater proficiency : for a young
man,1 when he is excommunicated, only becomes a despiser.
Palladius observes the same of the discipline of the great
church Of Mount Nitria,2 that they had three whips hanged
up in the church, one for chastising the offending monks,
another for robbers, and a third for strangers, that-eame ac
cidentally, and behaved themselves disorderly among them.
So in the rule of Isidore of Sevil, one article is,3 " that
they who were in their minority, should not be punished
with excommunication, but according to the quality of their
negligence or offence be corrected with congruous stripes."
The late author of the Historia Flagellantium,"1 cites the
Rule of Macarius,5 and that of St. Benedict,6 and Aurelian,7
and Gregory the Great to the same purpose.8 And Cyprian,
in the Life of Csesarius Arelatensis, says, that bishop ob
served this method both with slaves and freemen, that when
they were to be scourged for their faults, they should suffer
forty stripes save one, according as the law appointed.
The Council of Agde9 orders the same punishment not
only for junior monks, but also for the inferior clergy. And
the Council of Mascon10 particularly insists upon the num
ber of forty stripes save one. The Council of Vannes11
repeats the canon of Agde. And the Council of Epone
speaks12 of stripes, as the peculiar punishment of the minor
1 Socrat. lib. iv. cap. 23. Neoc cupopusSiug tear atppovrir fig yivtrai.
a Pallad. Hist. Lausiaca. cap. vi. " Isidor. Regula. cap; xvii.
In minori setate constituti non sunt coercendi sententia excommunicationis,
sed pro qualitate negligentiae congruis emendandi sunt plagis.
4 Hist. Flagellant, cap. v, et vi. 6 Macar. Regula. cap. xv.
6 Benedict. Reg. cap. lxx. 7 Aurelian. Reg. ibid.
8 Greg. lib. ix. Ep. 66. 9 Con. Agathen. can. xxxviii. Si
verborum increpatio non emendaverit, etiam verberibus statuimus coercerij
It. eau. xii. '» Con. Matiscon i. Can. 5. Si junior fuerit, uno
minus de quadraginta ictus aecipiat. " Con. Veneticum. can. vi.
'* Con. Epaunens. can. xv. Minores Clerici vapulabunt.

iae

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
clergy, for the same crimes, that were punished with excom
munication, for a whole year in the superior clergy Nor
is this to be wondered at in these Councils, since St. Austin1
assures us, this kind of punishment by stripes was commonly
used, not only by schoolmasters and parents, but by bishops
in their consistories also. And the plain reason of all this
seems to be, not so much the distinction of crimes, as the
distinction of age and quality in the persons.
Sect. 12.— How Persons were sometimes excommunicated after Death.
Another inquiry may be made concerning persons
deceased ; whether ever any excommunication was inflicted
on men after death, if they died in tbe peace and communion
of the Church ? It has already been observed,3 that when
-men died impenitent under the bonds of excommunication
tinrelaxed, a necessary consequence of that was the denying
them Christian burial, and all future memorial in the
prayers and oblations of the Church, by striking their
names out of the Diptychs or holy books, which kept the
memorial of such as died in the peace and communion of
the Church. But the question here is not about those, that
died so excommunicate, but those, that died in the visible
communion and external peace of the Church, and under
no ecclesiastical censure, whether upon any new discovery
of their errors or crimes after death, they were liable to be
excommunicated, and after what manner that censure was
passed upon them. Now the resolution of this question in
part will easily be given, from a famous case in Cyprian con
cerning one Geminius Victor, who, contrary to the rule of
a council, had made Geminius Faustinus a guardian or
trustee, by his last will and testament ; for which trans
gression, Cyprian, after his death, wrote to the Church of
Furni, where he had lived, to put the sentence of the
Council in execution against him; telling them,3 that
since Victor had presumed, against the rule made in
1 Aug. Ep. clix. ad Marcellin. Qui niodus coercitionis et a magistris
artium liberalium, et ab ipsis parentibus, et sa?pe etiam in judiciis solet ab
episcopis adhiberi. Vid. Aug. Serm. ccxv. de Tempore. Si ad vos perti
nent, etiam Hagellis csedite, &c. • * Chap. ii. sect. 11.
3 Cypr. Ep. lxvi. al. 1. ad Cler. Furnitan. p. 3. Ideo Victor, cum con
tra forniam nuper in concilio a sacerdotibus datam, Geminium Faustinuin
4>i 'csbytcruni ausus sit tutorcin constituere, non est quod pro dormitioneejus
apud vos tialoblatio autdeprecatio aliqua nomine ejus in ecclesia frequentetur.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 15?
Council, to appoint Geminius Faustinus, one of the pres
byters of the Church, his trustee, for this offence no ob
lation ought be made for his death, nor any prayer to be
offered in his name in the Church, according to the custom
of praying then for all that were departed in the faith. This
was a plain excommunication of him after death, by erasing
his name out of the Diptychs of the Church. Such an
other decree we find in the African Code against any bishop
that should make heretics or heathens his heirs, whether
they were of his own kindred or not :J " Let such an one
be anathematized after death, and let not his name be written
or recited among the priests of God." With this agrees
what St. Austin says more than once concerning Cecilian,
bishop of Carthage,2 that if the things, which the Donatists
objected against him, were true, and they could evidently
prove them, the Catholics were ready to anathematize him
afterdeath. Andthere wantnotin fact several instances of this
practice. For thus Origen, as Socrates says,3 was excommuni
cated two hundred years after his death by Theophilus, bishop
of Alexandria. And Theodorus of Mopsuesria was so anathe
matized by the fifth general Council,* as appears from Eva
grius, and the Letters of Justinian, and the Acts of the
Council. In like manner the sixth general Council2 ana
thematized Pope Honorius as a Monothelite, after death, to
gether with Cyrus, bishop of Alexandria, arid Theodoras,
bishop of Pharan, and Sergius, Pyrrhus, Petrus, and Paulus,
bishops of Constantinople, all whose names were erased out
of the sacred Diptychs after death by the order of that
Council. It is a grand dispute indeed among the gentlemen
of the Church of Rome, whether the name of their Pope
Honorius ought to stand in that black list? (Baronius6
affirming, that the Acts of the Council, where his name is
inserted, are corrupted ; and Combefis, on the other hand,1,
1 Cod. Afric. can. lxxxii. Msrri Srdvarov avaS/ifia Toiurip XexStiy, &e.
! Aug. Ep. 1. ad Bonifac. Comitera. p. 80. Si vera essent, quae ab eis
objecta sunt Caeciliano, et nobis possent aliquando monstrari, ipsum jam
mortuum anathematizaremus. It. Ep. clii. Qua? est Epistola Synodica
Concilii Cirtensis ad Djnatistas. Si forte raalus esset inventus, ipsum
anathematizaremus.
3 Socrat. lib. vii. cap. 45. * Evagr. lib. iv. cap. 3a
Justin. Epist. in Act. i. Con. 5. General. 6 Con. Constant,
iv. Gen. Act. 13. 6 Baron. An. 680. n. 34.
' Combefis Hist. Monothelitar. Par. 1648.

158 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE LBOOK XVI"
writing a whole volume against Baronius to prove , them
genuine:) but however that matter be, there is no dispute
fbout all the rest; but that they were certainly -a"Z J
by that Council after death. Sometimes men we e unjust y
excommunicated either living or dead: and then the way to
restore them to the communion of the Church was to insert
their names into the Diptychs, whence they had been ex
punged before. Thus Theodoret says,1 Atticus restored the
name of Chrysostom, after it had for many years been left
out And John, bishop of Constantinople, in a synod, Anno
518, restored the names of Pope Leo, and Euphemius, and
Macedonius, and the Council of Chalcedon, which by the
fraud of Anastasius, the Emperor, who was an Eutychian
heretic, had all been cast out of the Diptychs of the'Chureh.2
This was the method both of condemning, and restoring men
to the communion of the Church after death. To deny
them Christian burial, or not to receive their oblations, or to
erase their names out of the Diptychs, was the same thing
as to declare them anathematized, and cast out of the
communion of the faithful, with whom the Church main
tained communion after death. And so far we have
considered the persons that might or might not be the sub
jects of ecclesiastical censures, whether living or dead.
Sect. 13.— The Censures of the Church not to be inflicted for small
Offences.
The next inquiry is concerning the crimes, for which these
censures might be inflicted. And here the canons are wont
to make a very exact and nice distinction in general between
the greater and lesser sins, the former only being
such as were regarded in. the business of excommunica
tion. For this being the severest of all punishments
was not be inflicted for every trifle. " Therefore
bishops," says the Council of Agde,3 " must have a
1 Theod. lib. v. cap. 34. 2 Vid. Acta Con. Const, in Act. v. Con. sub Menna.
5 Con. Agathen. cap. iii. Episcopi, si sacerdotali moderatione postpositS,
innocentes, aut minimis causis culpabiles, excommunicare prsesumpserint,
 a vicinis episcopis cujuslibet provincial Uteris moneantur. Et si parere
noluerint, communio illis usque ad tempus synodi a reliquis episcopis dene
getur, al. non denegetur. See Gratian. Cans. xi. qusest. 3. cap. 8. Where
this canon is cited, and what the Roman correctors observe of this various
reading.

CHAP. HI.] CHRISTIAN. CHURCH. 1 5J>
great regard to sacerdotal moderation, and not presume
to excommunicate either the innocent, or those that are
guilty only of small offences. Otherwise they are liable to
be admonished by the neighbouring bishops of the pro
vince ; and if they obey not, the bishops of the province
are to refuse them their communion till the next
synod." Some copies read it, " They shall not be denied
communion till the next synod : and then it refers to the
persons excommunicated, that though they were rashly cast
out of the Church for slight causes by their own bishops,
the rest of the bishops should not deny them communion
till their cause was heard in a synod. The fifth Council
of Orleance has a like order,1 " That no bishop shall sus
pend any of the faithful from the communion for little and
slight ctiuses, but only for those crimes, for which the an
cient Fathers command offenders to be cast out of the
Church." And this is repeated in the Council of Arvern or
Clermont,9 held about the same time, Anno 549.
Sect. 14. — What the Ancients meant by small Offences in this Matter, and
how they distinguished them from the greater.
But it may be asked, What the ancient Fathers ' meant
by slight causes and small offences in this business of eccle
siastical censure? And how they distinguished these from
those greater crimes, which made men liable to excommu
nication and public penance in the Church ? The right
understanding of these things will be of great use, not
only to give us a clear view of the nature of ecclesiastical
discipline, but also to shew the vanity of a late distinction
between mortal and venial sin, as used by the Romanists,
to bring all sins that are mortal under the necessity of auri
cular confession, and private absolution. Now it is certain,
the Ancients did not believe any sins to be venial, as that
signifies needing no pardon, but in that sense all sins to be
mortal in their own nature, and such as we have need to

1 Con. Aurel. v. can. 2. . Nullus sacerdotum quenquam rectne fidei homi
nem pro parvis et levibus causis a communione suspendat : praeter eas culpas.
pro quibus antiqui patres arceri ab ecclesia jusserunt committentes.
2 Con. Arvemens. ii. can. ii. Con. torn. v. p. 402.

160 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
ask pardon for at the hands of God. But because there are
some sins of human frailty and inadvertency in the best of
men, and sins of dailv incursion, without which no man
lives ; these they usually call venial sins, as needing no
other repentance, but a general confession ; nor any other
paTdon, but what is daily granted by God to good men,
upon their daily prayers and acknowledgment of their offen
ces. Besides these, there are other sins of wilfulness, and
of a more malignant nature, which if continued in, without
a particular repentance and reformation will prove mortal,
and exclude men from the kingdom of heaven : and yet
many of these were such, as did not ordinarily bring men
under the highest censures of the Church, but were to be cu-
Ted only by general reproofs and exhortations to repentance.
These also in like manner, with respect to the severity of
Church-discipline, which did not reach them, were sometimes
termed lesser and venial sins, in opposition to those yetmore
heinous sins, which brought men under excommunication
and public penance to make expiation and atonement for
them. These sins were mortal in their own nature, and
fatal in the effect to the sinner : but yet the Church for
many reasons was obliged sometimes to let them pass,
without any other censure than a pastoral admonition. But
there was a third sort of sins both of a malignant, and
public, and flagrant nature, of which sinners might easily
be impleaded and convicted: and these were those great
sins, (as they are usually termed in opposition to both the
fore-mentioned kinds,) on which the highest severities of
Church-discipline were exercised, unless where the multi
tude of sinners, or their abettors, or the danger of schism,
as has been noted before, made the thing impracticable and
unfeasible. This three-fold distinction of sins, is accurately
noted by St. Austin in his Book of Faith and Works : he
says,1 " There are some sins so great, as to deserve to be

1 Aug. de Fide etOperibus. cap. xxvi. Nisi essent qtaidain ita gravia, ut
etiam excoramunicatlone plectenda sint, non diceret Apostolus : " Con-
gregatis vobis et meo spiritu, tradere ejusmodi hominem Satanse, &c."
Item nisi essent queedain non ea humilitate poenitentiam sananda, qualis In
ecclesia datur eis qui proprie pcenitentes vocantur, sed quibusdam correpti*

CHAP. HI. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 161
punished with excommunication, according to that of the
Apostle, To deliver such an ono unto Satan for the destruc
tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of
the Lord." Again, " There are other sins which are not
to be cured by that humiliation of penance, which is imposed
upon those, who are properly called penitents in the Church,
but by certain medicines of reproof, according to that of
our Lord, Tell him of his fault between him and thee alone ;
if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Lastly,
there are other sins, for whieh he had left us a daily cure
in that prayer, wherein he hath taught us to say, Forgive
us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against
us." By this it is plain, that all great and deadly sins did
not bring men under the public censure of excommunica
tion, but only those of the- first kind, which were of the
highest nature. In other places he distinguishes sins only
into two kinds, greater and lesser ; sins that obliged men to
do public penance, and sins, that were pardoned by daily
prayer, weeping, fasting, giving, and forgiving, without
any obligation to do public penance for them. The former
he calls mortal sins, j!and the other venial ; not because
they were not mortal in their own nature, but because they
were pardoned .with out the solemnity of a public repentance.
So many great sins, such as anger, and evil thoughts,
and evil speaking, and excess in the use of lawful things,
are reckoned by him in the number of lesser sins, in com
parison of such great and deadly sins, as murder, and theft,
and adultery. " He that is free," says he,1 " from great
and mortal sins, such as the crimes of murder, iheft, and
adultery, yet being liable to many lesser sins of the tongue

tionum medicamentis, non diceret ipse Dominus, " Corripe inter te ct ipsum
solum, &c." Postremo, nisi essent quaedam, sine quibus haic vita non agi-
tur, non quotidianain medelam poneret in oratione quam docuit, ut dicamus
" Dimitte nobis debita nostra, &c."
1 Aug. Tract, xii. in Joan. p. 47. Liberatus ab illis lethalibus et grand-
bus peccatis, qualia sunt facinora, homicidia, furta, adulteria, propter ilia
quae minuta esse peccata videntur linguae, cogitationum, aut immodcrationis
in rebus concessis, facit veritatem confessionis, et venit ad lucem in open.
bus bonis: quoniam minuta, plura peccata-, si negligantur, occidunt, &c,
VOL. VI. M

102

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

and thoughts, and immoderate use of lawful things, he
thereupon exercises himself in making true confession of
them, and comes to the light by performing good works ;.
because a multitude of lesser sins, if they be neglected,
kill the soul. Many small drops fill a river : a grain of sand
is but a small thing, but many grains added together, will
load and oppress us. The pump of a ship, if it be neglec
ted, will do the same thing as a boisterous wave. It enters
by little and little at the pump, but by long entering, and
never draining, at last it sinks the ship. And what is it to
drain the soul, but by good works, such as mourning, and
fasting, and giving and forgiving, to take care that such
sins do not overwhelm the soul?" The lesser sins, he
here speaks of, were not only sins of inadvertency and
common human frailty, but sins of an higher nature : and
yet he calls them little sins, in comparison of those great and
deadly sins of adultery and murder, for which men under
went public penance, which they did not for these other
sins, which yet would prove fatal, unless men took care, by
confession and godly sorrow- and fasting, and almsdeeds
and charity to their enemies, to clear themselves of them.
In another place1 he speaks of two sorts of repentance for
two sorts of sins committed after baptism, which he thus
distinguishes : " There is one sort of repentance, which is
to be performed every day. And whence can we shew that ?
I cannot better shew it, than from the daily prayer, where
our Lord hath taught us to pray, and shewn us what we are
to say unto the Father in these words, Forgive us our tres
passes, as we forgive them that trespass against us. There
is another more weighty and mournful sort of repentance,
from which men are properly called penitents in the Church :
by which they are sequestered from partaking of the sacra
ment of the altar, lest they should eatand drink damnation to
1 Aug. Horn, xxvii. ex 50. torn. x. p. 177. Est alia pcenitentia quotidians.
Et ubi illam ostendimus ? Non habeo ubi melius ostendam, quam in ora-
tione quotidians,, ubi Dominus orare nos docuit.- — Est et pcenitentia gravior
atque luctuosipr, in qu8,i proprie vocantur in ecclesia pcenitentes : etiam
remoti a Sacramento altaris participandi, ne accipiendo indigne, judicium.
sibi manducerrt et bibant. Ilia vero poenitentia luctuosa est, grave vulnus
est: adulterium forte, commis9um est, forte" homicidium, forte sacrilegiuuv.
Gravis res, grave vulnus, lethale, mortiferum, sed omnipotens medicus, &e.
Vid. Horn. 1. ibid. cap. 3.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 163
themselves. This is a grievous repentance, the wound is very
grievous, perhaps adultery, or murder, or sacrilege has been
committed. This is a grievous thing, a grievous wound,
mortal and deadly, but the physician is almighty." Here
again is a plain distinction between such great sins as adul
tery, sacrilege, and murder, for which men were to do a
long and public penance in the Church ; and such sins of
a lower rank, as were to be done away by daily prayer and
daily repentance, which was the remedy for all sins, great
and small, that were not of the highest nature. Upon this
account he calls public penance by the name of Poenitentia
Major, the greater repentance, for great and deadly sins,
in opposition to the lesser or daily repentance for sins of a
lower nature, which he terms venial sins, because they
were more easily pardoned by that ordinary and daily repen
tance. Thus, in his Instructions to the Catechumens, direc
ting them how to lead their lives after baptism, he tells
them,1 " He did not prescribe th'em an impossible rule, to
live here altogether free from sin : for there were some lesser
or more pardonable sins, without which this life is not
passed by any. Baptism was appointed for the remis
sion of all sins, of what kind soever : but for lesser sins
prayer was appointed. And what says the prayer ? Forgive
us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.
We are once washed, or cleansed from sin by baptism, we
are daily cleansed by prayer. Only do not commit such
things, for which it will be necessary to separate you from
the body of Christ, which God forbid. For, they, whom
you see doing penance, have committed great crimes,
1 Aug.de Symbolo ad Catechumenos. lib. i. cap. vii. torn. ix. Non vobis
dico, quia sine peccato hie vivetis : sed sunt venialia, sine quibus vita ista,
noh' est. Propter omnia peccata baptismus inventus est: propter levia,
sine quibus esse non possumus, oratio inventa. Quid habet oratio 1 " Dimitte
nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris." Semel
abl'uimur baptismate. Quotidie abluimur oratione. Sed nolite ilia commit-
ter'e, pro quibus necesse est ut a Christi corpore separemini; quod absit a.
vobis. Illi enim, quos videtis agere poenitentiarr:, scelera commiserunt,
aut' adulteria, aut aliqua facta immania : inde agunt psnitentiam. Nam si
levia peccata eorum essent, ad haec quotidiana oratio delenda sufficeret,
Ergo tribus iriodis dimittuntur peccata in ecclesia, in baptismate, in oratione
in liumilitate majoris pcenitentiffi. Vid. Aug. Horn. 119. de Tempore, cap,
viii. Ep, lxxxix. i(d Hilarium Quaest. i. Ep. cviii. ad Seleucianain.
W2

164

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVf,

either adultery or some such heinous wickedness, upon ac
count of which they are doing penance. For if they had
been light sins, the daily prayer would have been sufficient
to blot them out. Therefore there are three ways, by which
sins are forgiven in the Church, by baptism, by prayer, and
by the humiliation of the greater repentance." Where by
the greater repentance, it is evident he means the public
penance done in the church for crimes only of the highest
nature: and therefore, the lesser repentance, accompanying
men's daily prayers, was sufficient to blot out both lesser
sins of daily incursion, and also greater sins, for which no
public penance was required, but only the sincere reforma
tion of tho sinner, producing good works, and especially
works of charity and mercy. Thus in his Enchiridion,"
" for daily, short and light sins, without which no man
lives, the daily prayer of the faithful is sufficient. This prayer
blots out all little and daily sins. It blots out also those
sins, with which the life of the faithful is more egregiously
defiled, provided they change it into better by true repent
ance; if they say truly, with actions corresponding to their
words, " Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that
trespass against us." He often distinguishes9 between
Peccatum and crimen, making the first to be such sins-
as are forgiven by daily prayer and daily repentance ; and
the second such flagrant crimes as murder, adultery, forni
cation, theft, fraud, sacrilege, and such like, for which
men were obliged to undergo public penance in the Church.
And he understands the same things, when he so often dis-

' Aug. Enchirid. cap. 71. De quotidianis, brevibuslevibusque peccatis,
sine quibus haec vita non ducitur, quotidlana oratio fidelium satisfacit. — Delet
omnind haec oratio minima et quotidiana peccata. Delet omnino haec ,
oratio minima et quotidiana peccata. Delet et ilia, a quibus vita fide
lium scelerate etiam gesta, sed pocnitendo in melius mutata discedit,
&c. * Aug. Horn. xii. ex 50. Homo baptizatus,
si vitam, non audeo dicere sine peccato (quis enim sine peccato T) sedvitam
sinecrimine duxerit, et alia habet peccata quae quotidie dimittuntur in oratione
dicente, " Dimitte nobis debita nostra, &c." Quando diem finierit, vitam
i'on finit sed transit de vita in vitam. It. Tract. 41 in Joan. torn. ix. p. 126.
Apostolus quando elegit ordinandos — non ait, Si quis sine peccato est; hoc
enim si diceret, omnis homo veprobaretur, nullus ordinaretur ; sed ait, Si

t!HAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 165
tinguishes1 between greater and lesser sins, mortal sins and
venial sins ; prescribing public repentance for the one, and
private repentance for the other. By all which it is manifest,
that neither sins of human frailty and daily incursion, to
which the best of men are liable ; nor many sins of a mora
malignant nature, as many evil words, and evil thoughts,
and excesses in the use of lawful things, and hasty anger
and frequent going to law for trifles, were reckoned into
the number of those flagrant crimes, for which the severities
of Church-discipline were inflicted upon delinquents ; but
all such sins, being of an inferior nature, or not so easy to
be proved upon men, were only matters of reproof, and
left to their own consciences to cure, either by daily prayer,
or private repentance and reformation.
And that this was so from the beginning, appears from
what the learned Du Pin has discoursed upon this matter2
against Mr. Arnaud and others of his own communion.
He observes, that all the Ancients made this very distinction,
between great and little sins, and reckoned only very capi
tal and mortal crimes in the number of such sins, as were
to be punished with excommunication. Ter-tulliah, even
when he disputes against the Church upon the point of ab
solution and readmission of excommunicated sinners into
the Church again, owns notwithstanding, that there were
many sins, which did not bring men under the censure of
excommunication, because they were sins of daily incursion,
to which all men were more or less exposed. Among these3

quis sine crimine est, sicut est homicidium, adulterium, aliqua immunditia
fornicationis, Furtum, fraus, sacrilegium, et cetera hujusmodi. He says
a little before, Crimen est peccatum grave, accusatione et damnatione dignis-
simum. De Civ. Dei. lib. xxi. cap. 27. Non putare nos esse sine pecca-
tis, etiamsi a, criminibus essemus immunes.
1 Aug. Tract, xxvi. in Joan. p. 93. De Symbolo. lib. i. cap. vii. cont
Julian. Pelagian, lib. ii. cap. x.
3 DuPin. Bibliotheque Cent. iv. p. 218. s Tertul. de
Pudicit. cap. xix. Sunt,quaedam delicta quotidiana? incursionis, quibus
omnes simus objecti. Cui enim non accidet aut irasci inique, et ultra solis
occasum, aut et manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut temere jurare,
aut fidem pacti destruere, aut verecundia aut necessitate mentiri ; in negotiis
in officiis, in qusestu, in victa, in visu, in auditu quanta tentainur.— Sunt

166 THE ANTIQUITIES OP THE [BOOK XVl.
he reckons anger, when it is unjust either in its cause or
duration, when the sun goes down upon our wrath ; and
also quarrelling and evil-speaking, a rash or vain oath, a
failure in our promise, a lie extorted by modesty or neces
sity, and many such temptations, which befal men in their
business and offices, in gain, in eating, in seeing, and
hearing. On the contrary, there are some more -grievous
and deadly sins, which are incapable of pardon, (according
to his rigid principles of Montanism) such as murder, idola
try, fraud, apostacy, blasphemy, adultery, and fornication,
and other such defilements of the temple of God. In his
book against Marcion, he precisely reckons up seven sins,
which he distinguishes by the names of capital crimes,1
idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-
witness and fraud. The Roman clergy observe the same
distinction between greater and lesser sins, when they,, in
their Epistle to Cyprian,9 style idolatry the great sin, and
the grand sin above all others. And Cyprian8 himself calls
it " summum delictum, the highest of all crimes. The
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which has never for
giveness, but makes a man guilty of eternal sin :" that is,
a sin, that was to be punished in both worlds, without repen
tance. Which is the notion, that most of the Ancients had
of the sin against the Holy Ghost, (to note this by the way)
not that it was absolutely unpardonable,* but that men were
to be punished for it, both in this world and the next, unless
they truly repented of it. Again, Cyprian speaking of ido
latry in those, that lapsed in persecution, he6 distinguishes it

autem et contraria istis, ut graviora et exitiosa, qua? veniam non capiant,
homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blaspheinia, utique et mcechia et
fornicatio, et si qua alia viol atio, templi Dei.
1 Tertul. cont. Marcion. lib. iv. cap. ix. Septem maculis capitaliura
delictorum, idololatria, blasphemia, homicidio, adulterio, stupro, falso testi-
monio, fraude. 2 Ap. Cypr. Ep. xxvi. al. xxxi.
p. 63. Grande delictum. Ingens et supra omnia peccatum.
8 ^yPr- Ep. x. al. xvi. p. 36. Summum delictum esse quod persecutio
committi coegit, sciunt ipsi etiam qui commiserunt, cum dixerit Dominus,
" Qui blasphemaverit Spiritum Sanctum, non habebit remissam, sed reus
est aeterni peccati."
* See chap. vii. sect. 3. 5 Cypr. Ep. xi. al. xv. ad
Martyr, p. 34. Gravissimum atque extremum delictum.

CHAP. III. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 107
by the title of the most heinous and extreme offence. And
speaking also of adultery, fraud, and murder, he calls them*
mortal sins, by way of distinction from those of a lower
kind. So Origen calls some great and mortal sins, such
as blasphemy, for which the Church3 very rarely allowed
men to do penance above once: but there are other common
sins of daily incursion, such as evil words, and other cor
ruptions of good manners, which admit of frequent repen
tance, and are redeemed continually without intermission.
Where he plainly shews, that the repentance, which the
Church allowed but once for great sins, means public
penance in the Church : but lesser and common offences
were atoned for another way, and as often as they were
committed, by a daily repentance. In another place,1 he rec
kons up lesser sins, to which all are more or less subject, such
as detraction and mutual defamation of one another, self-
conceit, banquetting-, lieing, idle words and such other light
faults as are frequently found in men, who have made a good
proficiency in the Church. These therefore could not be the
sins, whicb ordinarily subjected men to excommunication, un
less we could suppose all men liable to so severe a censure.
But there were other crimes, which he calls great sins,and sins
unto death ; such as adultery, murder, effeminacy and defile
ment with mankind, which whoever committed, he was to be
treated as an heathen man or a publican. St. Ambrose makes
the same distinction of sins,3 " As there is but one baptism, so

1 Cypr. de Patient, p. 216. Adulterium, fraus, homicidium mortale crimen
est. z Orig. Horn. xv. in Levit. torn. i. p. 174. Si nos
aliqua culpa mortalisinvenerit, quae non in criinine mortali, non in blasphe-
mia. fidei, sed vel in sermonibus, vel in morum vitio  hujusmodi culpa
semper reparari potest. In gravioribus enim culpis semel tantum vel raro
poenitentia! conceditur locus : ista vero communia, qua? frequenter incurrimus,
semper poenitentiam recipiunt, et sine intermissione redimuntur.
8 Id. Tract, vi. in Mat. p. 60. Nee enim existimo cito aliquem inveniri in
-ecclesia, qui non jam ter in eadem culpa argutus sit, utputa in detractione,
qua invicem homines detrahunt proximus suis, aut inflatione, aut in epula-
tione, aut in verbo mendacii vel ocioso, aut in tali aliqua culpa levi, qua?
etiam in illis qui videntur proficere in ecclesia, frequenter inveniuntur.
* Ambr. dePcenit. lib. ii. cap. 10. Sicut unum baptisma, ita una pceni
tentia, qua? tamen publice agitur. Nam quotidiani nos debet peonitere pecca-
ti : sed haec delictorum leviorum, ir i'la graviorum.

168 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
there is but one public penance ; for wc are to do penance
for the sins wo commit every day : but this last penance is
for small sins, and the former for great, ones." And so
Prosper, or Julianus Pomerius under his name, says,1
" There are some sins so small, that we cannot perfectly
avoid them, and for the expiation of these we cry daily to
God, and say, Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them
that trespass against us: but there are other sins, which
ought more carefully to be avoided, because when men are
publicly convicted of them, they make them liable to be
punished by human judgment :" meaning, that such capital"
offences were the crimes, which subjected men to excommu-
nicatiop, and not those lesser faults, which were only
matter of daily repentance. Cassian observes seven kinds
of human failings, which he distinguishes from mortal sins:
saying,3 " It is one thing to commit mortal sin, and another
to be overtaken with an evil thought, or to offend by igno
rance, or forgetfulness, or an idle word, which easily slips
from us, or by a short hesitation in some point of faith,
or the subtile ticklings of vain-glory, or by necessity of
nature to fall short of perfection. For these seven ways a holy
man is liable to fall ; and yet he does not cease to be righteous,
and though they seem to be but small sins, yet they are
enough to prove, that he cannot be without sin : for he has
upon this account need of a daily repentance, and is obliged
in truth without any dissimulation to ask pardon, and pray
continually for his sins, saying, Forgive us our trespasses."
Gregory Nyssen has a Canonical Epistle concerning disci
pline, wherein, as Du Pin observes, he makes an exact enu
meration of those sins, which subjected men to pubhc
penance, which are all enormous sins and considerable
crimes, such as idolatry, apostacy, divination, murder,
adultery, theft, and sacrilege. From all which it is very

'Prosper, de Vit. Contemplat. lib. ii. cap. 7. Exceptis peccatis, qua;
tam parva sunt ut caveri non possint, pro quibus expiandis quotidie clama-
musad Deum, et dicimus, " Dimitte, &c." Ilia crimina caveantur, qua;
publicata suos autores humano faciunt damnari judicio.
' Cassian. Collat. xxii. cap. 13. Aliud est admittere mortale peccatuin,
et aliud est cogitatione quae peccato non caret pneveniri, vel ignorantia: aut
•oblivionis errore, aut facilitate, ociosi sermonis offendere, &c.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 169
evident, that by the ancient rules no crimes were to be
punished with excommunication, but those that were of the
highest nature, which they called mortal sins ; nor yet all
remote violations of the moral law, but only the more im
mediate, direct and professed transgressions of it. Of the
species and effects of anger, as Gregory Nyssen1 observes
they inflicted canonical and public penance upon murder ;
but not upon the inferior degrees of it, such as stripes, and
evil-speaking, or other effects of anger, which are prohibi
ted in Scripture, and bring men in danger of eternal death.
So of all the degrees of covetousness, which are very-
many and heinous, they punished none with excommunica
tion but only notorious oppression, and theft, and robbing
of graves, and-saerilege, and the like. So that when they
sometimes call sins of this middle rank, light and venial sins,
in contradistinction to those they termed mortal, they do not
mean what now the vulgar casuists of the Romish Church
mean by venial sins, but only that they were not of the
number of those capital crimes, for which the Church sub
jected men to' excommunication, and enjoined them public
repentance. Which the learned reader may find not only
accurately demonstrated by Mr. Daille,2 but ingenuously con
fessed by Du Pin,3 and also Petavius1 before him. Daille
transcribes Petavius's words, and I shall here transcribe
those of Du Pin : " I would not have it thought," says he,
" that I make these remarks to authorise licentiousness, or to
insinuate, that there are some mortal sins, that may pass for
venial : God forbid, that I should have so detestable a de
sign ! On the contrary, my intention is to create an horror
of all sins ; first of great crimes: secondly, of sins, which
may be mortal, though they appear not so enormous : and
thirdly, even of slighter sins also. But I thought myself
obliged to observe here, for explaining a passage in St.
Ambrose, that none but the sins of the first class did sub<-
ject men to public penance, and that it is of these only the

1 Nyssen. Ep. ad Leotium. 9 Dallas, de Confess. Auri
cular, lib. iv. cap. 20. 3 DuPin. Cent. iv. p. 219.
* Petav. Not. in Epiphan. p. 236.

170 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Fathers speak, and which they comprehend under the name
of enormous sins and crimes : though there be others, which
may be also mortal, and which a Christian ought carefully
to shun ; but then they are such, for which he was never
subjected to the humiliation of a public penance, but only
to corrections and reprimands given in secret, as St. Aus
tin informs us." These observations are very just: for it
is certain, the Fathers speak against all sins, even those of
the lowest rank, as dangerous and mortal, if neglected and
wilfully indulged, and not carefully opposed by striving
against them, and washing away the guilt by daily repen
tance : according. to what we have heard St. Austin say1
before, that a multitude of lesser sins overwhelm and kill
the soul, if they be neglected ; as a small leak in a ship, if
if it be not carefully stopped or drained, will sink it, as well
as a biggerwave: which comparison2 he uses in many places.
And the reader, that pleases, may find the same caution given
against lesser sins, as mortal in their own nature, if neglected
and indulged, by Nazianzen,3 Basil,* Jerom,5 Gregory the
Great,5 and many others, who say, there is no sin so small, but
that in rigour of justice it would prove mortal, if God would
enter into judgment with us, and be extreme to mark what
is done amiss against his law, and especially in contempt of
it. But to return to the business in hand.

Sect. 15. — Excommunication not inflicted for temporal Causes.
As it was a general rule, not to use excommunication for
slight offences, so we may observe, it was no rule to use
this weapon, as in after ages, for mere pecuniary matters
and temporal causes. It hasjrequently been complained of
by learned men, both of the Protestant and Roman com-

1 Aug. Tract, xii. in Joan. p. 47. * Vid. Aug. Tract.
i. in 1 Joan. p. 237. Serm. iii. in Psal. 118. p. 545. De Civ. Dei. lib.
xxi. cap. xxvii. Ep. 108. Horn. ult. ex 50. s Naz, 0rat.
xxxi. p. 504. * Basil. Regula. Brev. iv.
* Hieron. Ep. xiv. 6 Gregf- i;b_ {i in ._ Reg> Hom
ii. in Ezek. Gennad. de Eccl. Dogin. cap. 53.

CHAP- HI.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 171
munion, that this is a great abuse of excommunication,1 that
it is often issued forth for the discovery of theft, or the
manifestation of secret actions. Of which there are divers
instances in the Decretals ; and approbation is given to
them by the Council of Trent,2 only reserving such cases, as
a special privilege to the bishop ; who is to give a premo
nition to he knows not whom, and condemn a pretended
criminal without hearing, contrary to all the rules aforesaid
ih the primitive Church, which allowed no excommunication
in a slight cause, nor in any cause without sufficient evi
dence, and allowing the criminal to speak for himself. So
again, as Du Moulin observes3 out of Cardinal Tolet, in
the Romish Church they excommunicate men for future
time, and before- any crime is committed, and that for
securing only the stocks or trees of the lord of a town or
village from spoil, although no man has laid hand upon
them. At the request of a creditor they excommunicate a
debtor, if he pay not within a certain term, 'and his insuf
ficiency to pay is the only remedy, in the utmost extremity,
which the law of the Decretals* allows him from so severe
a censure. But that which is chiefly complained of by
their own learned Gerson in this matter, is the abuse of ex
communication in the pecuniary concerns of ecclesiastical
courts themselves. Bishop Taylor has alleged5 him in
these words : " Not every contumacy against the orders of
courts ecclesiastical is to be punished with this death. If
it be in matters of faith or manners, then the case is com
petent: but when it is a question of money and fees,
besides that the case is full of envy and reproach, apt for
scandal, and to bring contempt upon the Church, the
Church has no direct power in it ; and if it have by the aid

' 'Taylor, Duct. Dubit. lib. iii. cap. iv. p. 617. Du Moulin. Buckler of
Faith, p. 369. Gentillet. Examen. Con. Trid. p. 300. Gerson. in Bishop
Taj lor. ibid. 2 Con. Trid. Sess. xxv. de Reformat, cap.
iii. Excommunicationes ills, qua? monitionibus promissis, ad finem revela-
tionis, ut aiunt, aut pro deperditis seu subtractis rebus ferri selent, a nemi-
ne prorsus pr»terquam ab episcopo decernantur. 8 Du Mou
lin, ibid, ex Tolet. Instruct. Sacerdot. cap. viii. • * Decretal.
Gregor. lib. iii. tit. xxiii. de Solution, cap. iii. "Gerson. de
VitaSpirituali. lect. iv. corol. vii.

^72 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
of the civil power, then for that a civil coertion must be
used. It is certainly unlawful to excommunicate any man
for not paying the fees of courts : for a contumacy there is
an offence against the civil power, and he hath a sword of
his own to avenge that. But excommunication is a sword
to avenge the contumacy of them, who stubbornly offend
against the discipline of the Church, in that wherein Christ
hath given her authority, and that is in the matters of
salvation and damnation immediate, in such things where
there is no secular interest, where there can be no dispute,
where the offender does not sin by consequence and in
terpretation, but directly and without excuse. But let it be
considered how great a reproach it is to ecclesiastical disci
pline, if it be made to minister to the covetousness, or to
the needs of proctors and advocates : and if the Church
shall punish more cruelly than civil courts for equal
offences, and because she hath but one thing to strike
withal, if she upon all occasions smites with her sword, it
will either kill too many, or hurt and affright none at all."
Whatever force there is in these arguments, or however
they may affect the Romish Church for this apparent cor
ruption of discipline, they do not in the least affect the
primitive Church, which Was conscious of no such practice,
but forbad all excommunication for light offences, among
which pecuniary matters must be reckoned. It is true,
bishops sometimes sat judges in civil causes, and their
determinations in such eases were peremptory and final:
but then their coercive power in such judicatures was not
excommunication, but civil punishments borrowed from the
state, and which the state obliged itself to see duly put in
execution ; of which I have given an ample account1 here
tofore, and shewn it to be a very different thing from ex
communication, or any kind of ecclesiastical censure.

Book ii. chap. vii.

CHAP. HI.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 173

Sect. 16.— No Bishop allowed to uso it to avengo any private Injury done
to himself.
I observe further, as very remarkable in this matter, that
no bishop was allowed to excommunicate any man for any
private injury done to himself. For though this might be a
great crime, yet it looked like avenging himself, and therefore
it was thought unbecoming his character to right himself by
excommunication, but either he was to bear the injury
patiently, or commit his cause to the judgment of others.
Upon this account Cyprian distinguishes between injuries
done to himself in his personal and private capacity, and
injuries done to the detriment of the brethren or whole
body of the Church.1 " I can bear and pass over any
affront, that is put upon my episcopal character, as I have
always done, when it only concerned my own person ; but
now there is no longer Toom for forbearance, when many
of our brethren are deceived by some of you, who, whilst
they would more plausibly recommend themselves to the
lapsers, by an unreasonable and hasty restoring them to the
peace of the Church, do more really prejudice their sal
vation." Here he plainly distinguishes between personal
injuries, which he could bear without any great resentment
or thoughts of punishing : but those, that were of a more
public nature, and not only affronts to his authority, but
prejudicial to the people, those he threatens to animadvert
upon according to their deserving. We find a like distinc
tion made by Gregory the Great, who, writing to a certain
bishop, who had excommunicated a man for a private injury
done to himself, thus reproves him for it:2 " You shew

1 Cypr. Ep. x. al. xvi. ad Cler. p. 36. Contumeliam episcopatus nostri
dissimulare et ferre possum, sicut dissimulavi semper et pertuli : sed dissi-
mulandinunclocusnonest, quando decipiatur fraternitas nostra a quibusdam
vestrum, qui dum sine ratione restituendae saluti6 plausibiles esse cupiunt,
magis lapsis obsunt.
' Greg. lib. ii. ep. xxxiv. Nihil te ostendis de caelestibus cogitare, sed
terrenam te conversationem habere significas ; dum pro vindicta propria? in
juria? (quod sacris regulis prohibetur) maledictionem anathematis invexisti.

174 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
that you think nothing of heavenly things, whilst you in
flict the curse of Anathema or excommunication for the
avenging a private injury done to yourself, which the holy
canons forbid. Therefore be circumspect and cautious for
the future, and presume not to do any such thing to any
man in defence of your own private injuries. Otherwise
you may expect to feel the censures of the Church for your
presumption." That there were ancient canons to this pur
pose in the time of Gregory, cannot be doubted from his
testimony, though 1 know of none at present, that speak
directly to this particular case; only in general the Council
of Sardica1 forbids bishops to excommunicate any one in
passion or hasty anger, and allows the injured person to
appeal to the provincial synod, or the neighbouring bishops
for redress in all such cases.
Sect. 17. — No Man to be excommunicated for Sins only in Design and
Intention.
It is also worth noting, that the Church inflicted tho
severe censures of excommunication upon men for overt
acts, and not for sins in bare design and intention : because,
though these might be great sins before God, as our
Saviour says, " He that looks on a woman to lust after her,
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart;" yet
the Church was no proper judge of the heart, and therefore
she did not ordinarily punish such sins, till they made some
visible appearance in the outward action. This seems to be
the meaning of that canon of the Council of Neoeaasarea,2
which says, " if a man purpose in his heart to commit fornica
tion with a woman, but his lust proceed not into action, it is
apparent he is delivered by grace." That is, he sins before
God for his wicked design, but the Church inflicts not ex
communication upon him, because his intention proceeds

Unde decaetero omhind esto circumspecfus atque sollicitus, et talia cuiquam
pro defensione propria; injuriae tuae inferre denuo non praesumas. Nam si
tale aliquid feceris, in te scias postea vindicandum. Vid. Gratian. caus.
xjfiii. quaest. iv. cap. xxvii.
1 Con. Sai'dic. can: xiv. in1 Latin. Edit. xvii. * Con,
Neocaisar. can, iv.

CHAP. III. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 175
not to any outward act of uncleanness. So Zonaras1 inter
prets it among the Ancients, and Osiander among the
modern2 interpreters. Though some think, that such in
tentions, if discovered by any overt-acts, might bring a man
under ecclesiastical censure.

Sect. IS. — Nor for forced or Involuntary Actions.
The case is more clear as to all forced and involuntary
actions, where the will was no way consenting to them. For
as they were free from sin, so they were from punishment.
There were some indeed, who out of an over-abundant zeal
and ignorant pretence of purity, were for excluding men
from communion for such things, which were more to be
reckoned their misfortunes than their crimes: but the
Council of Ancyra prudently corrected this erroneous zeal
by a canon3 to this purpose : " that communion should not be
denied to those, who fled, but were apprehended, or betrayed
by their servants, and suffered loss of their estates, or tor
ture, or imprisonment, declaring all the while that they
were Christians: though they were held, and by violence
the incense was put into their hands, and they were forced
to receive meat offered to idols into their mouths, declaring
themselves all the time to be Christians, and shewing by
their behaviour and habit and humble course of life, that
they were sorry for that, which happened ; these being
without sin, are not to be debarred from communion. Or if
by the super-abundant caution or ignorance of any, they
have been debarred, let them forthwith be received into
communion again. And the like is determined in the case
of women, that suffer ravishment against their wills, by
Gregory Thaumaturgus,* and St. Basil.5 And so by
Dionysius of Alexandria,6 and Athanasius,7 and others, for
any involuntary defilement whatsoever. These were the
1 Zonard. in can. xxxii. Basil. 2 Osian. in Can. iv. Neo-
cffis. Edit. Witeberg. 1614. Hoc videtur velle hie canon, eum non cadere
sub pcenam aliquam disciplinae ecclesiasticae, &c.
8 Con Ancyr. can. iii. * Greg. T'haum. can. i.
5 Basil, can. xlix. 6 Dionys. can. iv.
7 Athan. Ep. ad Ammum. ap. Bevereg. Pandect, torn. ii. p. xxxvi,

176 THE ANTIQUIT1KS OF THE [BOOK XVI
general measures obseryed by the Ancients, to distinguish
great and small offences, or innocence from sin, in order to
shew what might or might not bring men under the censure
of excommunication. But because it will contribute much
toward the more exact understanding of the ancient discipline,
to know more particularly the several sorts of those greater
crimes, for which men were subjected to the highest censures,
I will now proceed to make a more distinct inquiry into the
nature, and kinds, and degrees of those high misdemeanors
in the following chapters.

CHAP. IV.
A particular Account of those called great Crimes, the
principal of which was Idolatry. Of its several Species,
and Degrees of Punishment allotted to them according to
the Proportion and Quality of the Offences.
Sect. 1. — The Mistake of some about the Number of great Crimes, in con
fining them to Idolatry, Adultery, and Murder.
Learned men are not well agreed about the number of
those, which the Ancients called great crimes, with reference
to the ecclesiastical punishment, nor about the reason and
foundation of that title. There were some in St. Austin's
time, who were for confining great crimes, for which excom
munication was to be inflicted, to three only, adultery, ido
latry, and murder : these they allowed to be mortal sins, and
made no doubt but that they were to be punished1 with ex
communication, till they were cured by the humiliation of
public penance ; but for all others they said compensation
might easily be made by giving of alms. This St. Austin

1 Aug. de Fide et Oper. cap. xix. Qui autein opinantur et caetera elcemo-
synis facile compensari, tria tamen mortifera esse non dubitent excommuni-
catione punienda, donee poenitentia humUiore sanentur, impudicitiam, idolo-
latriam, homieidium.

CHAP. LV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 177
labours to confute, not only in the place alleged, but in
several others,1 by which it is evident, that these were not
the only great crimes, that were punished with excommu
nication. And therefore those modern authors make a
wrong representation of the ancient discipline, who confine
it to those three great crimes, or to such as may be reduced
to them : since it is apparent from what is now said, that it
extended much further ; and, as I shall presently shew, in
cluded all the great crimes against the whole Decalogue,
or transgressions of the moral law in every instance.
Sect. 2.— The Account given of great Crimes in the Civil Law, extended
much further.
And it is very observable, that even in the civil law, the
account that is given of great crimes, extended much fur
ther. For when the Emperors, according to custom, at the
Easter festival, granted a general release and indulgence to
such as were imprisoned for their misdemeanours, they still
excepted several other heinous crimes, specified in their
laws, some five, some six, some eight, some ten, which can
not be reduced to the three crimes of idolatry, adulterv, and
murder. The Jaws of Valentinian and Gratian except seven
capital crimes from any benefit of such indulgence,2 viz.
sacrilege, treason, robbing of graves, necromancy, adultery,
ravishment, and murder. The laws of Theodosius the Great
except eight capital crimes, treason, parricide, murder, adul
tery, ravishment, incest, necromancy, and counterfeitino- of
the imperial coin.3 And those of Valentinian Junior except
ten;* sacrilege, adultery, incest, ravishment, robbing of
graves, charms, necromancy, counterfeiting the coin, mur
der and treason. Now when the civil law excepted so
many great crimes, under the name of Atrocia Delicta, from

1 Vid. Aug. Horn. ult. ex 50. De Civ. Dei. lib. xxi. cap. 27.
1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 38. De Indulgentiis Criminum leg. iii. Ob
diem Paschs, quem intimo corde celebramus, omnibus quos reatus ad-
stringit, career inclusit, claustro dissolvimus. Attamen sacrilegus, in maj es
tate reus, in mortuos, veneficus sive maleficus, adulter, raptor, homicida
communione istius muneris separentur. It. Leg. iv. ibid.
3 Ibid. Leg. vi. * Ibid. Leg. vii, et viii.
VOL. VI. N

178 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
the benefit of these indulgences, it is not probable, were
there no other argument to persuade it, that the ecclesias
tical law would let any of those heinous offences go un
punished, or wholly escape the severity of Church-censure.
Sect. 3.— And in the Ecclesiastical Law, the Account of great Crimes ex
tended to the whole Decalogue.
But we have clearer and more certain evidence in the
case. For first St, Austin says, the great crimes, which
were punished wilh public pemince, were such as were
against the whole Decalogue or ten commandments,1 of
which the Apostle says, " they which do such things,
shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Only, as Mr.
Daille rightly observes,3 we must interpret this of ca
pital crimes directly and expressly forbidden in the law,
not of all remote branches or lower degrees of sin, that
may any way whatsoever be reduced to the principal
crime, or indirectly come under the prohibition. For other
wise it would not be true, that all sins forbidden in the
Decalogue brought men under public penance, since there
are some transgressions only conceived in the heart, and
never completed in outward action,3 which though they
might be great breaches of the law, yet they could not
come under public censure, but were to be cured by private
repentance. Sect. 4. — A particular Enumeration of the great Crimes against the first '
and second Commandments. Of Idolatry, and the several Specips and
Branches of it.
Supposing therefore, that there were many gieat crimes
against every precept of the moral law, which might bring
men under ecclesia stieai censure, and public penance, we
will now proceed in the order of the Decaloeue, to consider
the nature, and kinds, and punishment of them. The great

1 Aug. Horn. ult. ex 50. cap, iii. torn. x. p, 205. Tertia actio est pceniten-
tiae, qusfi pro illis peccatis subeunda est, qua? legis decalogus continet; et
de quibus Apostolus ait, ' Quitalia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt.'
* Dallaeus de Confess. Auricular, lib. iv. cap. xx. p. 431.
* Vid. Aug. Horn. xliv. de Verb. Doin. c. v.

CHAP. IV. ] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 179
crimes against the first and second commandments, which
were commonly joined together, were comprised under the
general names of apostacy and irreligion ; which compre
hended the several species of idolatry ; blaspheming and
denying Christ in time of persecution ; using the wicked
arts of divination, magic, and enchantments ; and dishonour
ing God by sacrilege and simony; by heresy and schism ;
and other such profanations and abuses, corruptions and
contempts of his true religion and service. All these were
justly reputed great crimes, and ordinarily punished with
the severest ecclesiastical censures.
Sect. 5. — Of the Sacrificati and TAurificati, or such as fell into Idolatry by
offering Incense to Idols, and partaking of the Sacrifices.
Of idolaters there were several sorts ; some went openly
to the temples, and there offered incense to the idols, and
were partakers of the sacrifices. These were distinguished
by the name of Sacrificati and Thurificati, as we find them
often styled in Cyprian,1 who speaks of them as defiling both
their hands and mouths by the sacrilegious touch : meaning
their hands by offering incense, and their mouths by eating
of the sacrifices. And of these also there were several de
grees. Some, as soon as ever a persecution was set on
foot, before they were called upon, or had any violence
offered to them, went voluntarily to the temples, and offered
sacrifice of their own accord ; whilst others held out a1 long
time against torture, and only sacrificed, when the utmost
necessity compelled them. Cyprian makes a great diffe
rence between these two sorts of lapsers,2 as he does also

1 Cypr. Ep. xv. al. 20. ad Cler. Rom. p. 43. Qui sacrilegis contactibus
manus suas atque ora maculassent. It. Ep. Iv. -al. 52. ad Antonian, p. 108.
Placuit sacrificatis in exitu subveniri, quia exomologesis apud inferos non est.
2 Cypr. ibid. p. 106. Inter ipsos etiam qui sacrificaverint, et conditio
frequenter et causa diversa est. Neque enim ajquandi sunt, ille qui ad sa
crificium nefandum statim voluntate prosilivit ; et qui reluctatus et congres-
sus diu ad hoc funestum opus necessitate pervenit. Ille qui et se et omnes
suos prodidit; et qui ipse pro cunctis ad discrimen accedens, uxorem et li-
beros et domura totani periculi sui perfunctione protexit : ille qui inquilinos
vel amicos suos ad facinus compulit ; et qui inquilinis et colonis pepercit ;
N 2

180 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
between those, who went not only themselves, but com
pelled their wivesand children, and servants, and friends to
go and sacrifice with them ; and those, who to deliver their
families and friends from danger, went and exposed them
selves alone; by this means protecting not only their own
families, but also many Christian brethren and strangers,
that were banished and had fled to take shelter in their
houses, who were as so many living intercessors to God for
them. They who did thus, he thinks, were much more ex
cusable than those, who both went voluntarily, and by their
counsel and authority compelled many others to go along
with them. Whose crimes he iherefore elegantly describes
and aggravates after this manner in his Book De Lap sis :'
" They did not stay, till they were apprehended, to go to
the capital, but denied the faith before any question was
asked them about il. They were conquered before the
fight, and fell without any engagement. They ran to the
forum of their own accord, and made haste to give them
selves the mortal wound, as their own voluntary act, without
compulsion : as if they had desired this long before, and
now only embraced the opportunity that was given them,
which they always wished for. How was it, that when they
went so readily to the capital to do this wicked act, their legs
did not sink under them, and their eyes grow dim, and their
bowels tremble, and their arms fall down, and their senses
become stupid, and their tongue faulter, or cleave to the
roof of their mouth, and their words fail them % could the
servant of God stand there, and speak and renounce Christ,
who had before renounced the devil and the world % was
not that altar, whither he came to die, more like his funeral
pile 1 ought he not to have abhorred and fled from the altar
of the devil, as his coffin or his grave, when he saw it smoke
and fume with a stinking smell % to what purpose, thou
miserable wretch, didst thou bring thy oblation, and put

fratres etiam plurimos, qui extorres et profugi recedebant, in sua tecta et
hospitia recepit, ostendens et offerens Domiuo multas viventes et incolumes
animas, quae pro una saucifi deprecentur. Vid. Petri Alex. can. 1, 2, 3.
1 Cypr.de Lapsis. p. 121.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 181
thy sacrifice upon the altar? Thou thjself wert the victim,
thou thyself the sacrifice and burnt-offering. There thou
didst sacrifice thy salvation, and burn thy faith and thy
hope in those abominable fires. But many were not con
tent with their own destruction ; the people provoked one
another into ruin by mutual calls and exhortations, and the
cup of death was handed round by every man to his neigh
bour. And that nothing might be wanting to consummate the
crime, parents carried their children in their arms, or led them
after them, that their little ones might lose what they had
gained in their first birth. Will not they say, when the day
of judgment comes, we did nothing ourselves; we did not
leave the bread and cup of the Lord, to run of our own ac
cord to those profane contagions : it was the treachery of
others that destroyed us, our parents were guilty of parricide
towards us. They deprived us of the privilege of having the
Church for our mother, and God for our Father ; that whilst
we were little, and unable to care for ourselves, and igno
rant of so great a wickedness, we should be taken and be
trayed by other men's frauds, being by them made partners
in their offences." Thus far Cyprian, aggravating the
crimes of those, who shewed such a forwardness to commit
idolatry, and apostatise with greediness and delight.
Now as these were some of the highest degrees of idola
try, so the Church put a remarkable difference between
them and others in her punishments, setting a more peculiar
mark or note of distinction upon them in her censures.
There are several canons in the Council of Ancyra, which
plainly shew this distinction. The fourth canon orders,
" That they, who were compelled to to go to-an idol temple,
if they went with a pleasing air, and in a festival habit, and
took share of the feast with unconcernedness ; that they
should do six yeaTS penance, one as hearers only, three as
prostrators, and two as costanders to hear the prayers, be
fore they were admitted to full communion again. But if
they went in a mourning habit to the temple, and wept all
the time they eat of the sacrifice, then four years penance
should be sufficient to restore them to perfection." The
eighth canon orders, " Those, who repeated their crime by

182 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
sacrificing twice or thrice, to do a longer penance :" for
seven years is appointed to be their term of discipline.
And by the ninth canon, " If any not only sacrificed them
selves, but also compelled their brethren, or were the occa
sion of compelling them, then they were to do ten years
penance, as guilty of a more heinous wickedness," according
as we have heard Cyprian represent it. But if any did nei
ther sacrifice, nor eat things offered to idols, but only their
own meat on an heathen festival in an idol-temple, they
were only confined to two years penance by the seventh
canon of the same Council. These canons chiefly respect
such as transgressed after some violence or force put upon
them, by torture or banishment, or imprisonment or confis
cation, or the like necessity in any other kind of trial: but
if any voluntarily apostatised, and prevaricated without com
pulsion, a severer punishment was laid upon them: for, by
the rules of the Council of Nice,1 they were to undergo
twelve years penance, before they were perfectly restored
again to full communion. And the same term is appointed
by the second Council of Aries,2 which refers to the Nicene
canon. The Council of Valence, in France,3 goes a little
further, and obliges them to do penance all their lives, and
allows them absolution only at the hour of death, which
they were to expect more fully from the hands of God
only, who alone had the absolute power of it, and was in
finite in mercy, that no one should despair. Agreeable
to which is that rule of Siricius,* that apostates should do
penance all their lives, and be reconciled only at the hour
of death. The Council of Eliberis goes beyond this, and
denies such apostates communion at the very last extre
mity,5 because this was the great and principal crime above

1 Con. Nie. can. xi. 2 Con. Arelat. ii. can. 10.
3 Con. Valentin, can. iii, Acturi poenitentiam usque in diem mortis, non
sine spe tamen remissionis, quam ab eo plene sperare debebunt, 'qui ejus
largitatem et solus obtinet, ettam diu ei misericordia est, utnemo desperet.
* Siric. Ep. i. ad Himerium, cap. iii. Apostatis, quamdiu vivunt, agenda
poenitentia est, et in ultimo fine suo reconciliationis gratia tribuenda.
6 Con. Eliber. can. i. Placuit inter eos, qui post fidem baptismi salutaris,
adulta a?tate, ad templum idolatraturus accesserit, et fecerit quod est crimen
principale, quia est summum scelus, nee in fine eum communionem accipere.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 183
all others. And sometimes adultery and murder were a sort
of accessories or concomitants of this idolatry-, as many
times it was in the heathenish games and shews, which
were made up of idolatry, adultery, and murder: upon which
account this same Council has another canon,1 which orders,
" that if any Christian took upon him the office of a Fla-
men or Roman priest, and therein offered sacrifice, doubling
and trebling his crime by murder and adultery, he should
not be received to communion at the hour of death." Nor
need we wonder at this severity, since Cyprian assures us,2
that before his time many of his predecessors in the province
of Afric refused to grant communion to adulterers to the very-
last; and yet they did not divide communion from their fellow
bishops, who practised otherwise. And he says further, con
cerning voluntary deserters and apostates,3 who continued in
rebellion all their lives, and only desired penance when some
infirmity seized them, that they were cut off from all hopes
of communion and peace ; because it was not repentance
for their fault, hut the fear of approaching death that made
them desire a reconciliation ; and they were not worthy to
receive that comfort at their death, who would not consider
all their life before, that they were liable to die. The first
Council of Aries made a like decree,* " that such as volun
tarily apostatised, and never after sued to the Church, nor

1 Con. Eliber. can. i'. Flamines, qui post fidem lavacri et regenerationis
sacrificaverunt : eo quod geminaverint scelera, accedente hoinicidio ; vel
triplicaverint facinus, cohaerente moechiS, placuit eos nee in fine accipere
communionem. 2 Cypr. Ep. Iii. al. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 110.-
Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia
nostra dandam pacem moechis non putaverunt, et in totum pcenitentiae locum
contra adultei'ia clauserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio
recesserunt, &c.
3 Cypr. ibid. p. HI. Idcirco poemtentiam non agentes, nee dolorem
delictorum suorum toto corde et manifesta lamentationis suae professione
testantes, prohibendos omnino censuimus a spe communicationis et pacis;
quia rogare eos non delicti poenitentia, sed mortis urgentis adinonitio com-
pellit; nee dignus est in morte accipere solatium, qui se non cogitavit esse
moriturum. * Con. Arelat. i. can. 23. De his, qui apostant et
nunquam se ad ecclesiam repraesentent, nee quidem poenitentiam agere
quasrunt, et postea ininflrmitate arrepti petunt communionem, placuit eis non
dandam communionem, nisi revaluerint, et egcrint dignos fruc'us poenitentia?.

184 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI
desired to do penance all their lives till some infirmity
seized them, should not be received to communion, unless
they recovered and brought forth fruits worthy of repen
tance." These were the rules by which the ancient disci
pline was regulated and conducted in reference to such ido
laters and apostates, as actually defiled themselves by
offering sacrifice to idols, whether it were by force or by
choice ; whether they lapsed singly, or drew others into
the same crime with themselves ; and whether they returned
immediately and became penitents, or continued apostates
and rebels : according to the difference of which circum
stances, diff'erent degrees of punishment were laid upon
them. Sect. 6. — Of the Libellatiei ,* wherein their Idolatry consisted.
Another sort of those, who lapsed into idolatry, and were
charged with denying their religion, were called Libellatiei,
from certain libels or writings which they either gave to the
heathen magistrates in private, or received from them, to he
excused doing sacrifice in public; Baronius thinks there
was one sort of Libellatiei,1 and that they all expressly de
nied Christ, either by themselves or others; but being
ashamed to sacrifice or deny him in public, they made a
private renunciation, and for a bribe got a libel of security
from the magistrate, to indemnify and secure them from
being sought after, or called upon to sacrifice in public.
But other learned men observe some distinction amono-
them :2 and indeed there seem at least to have been three
sorts of them. Some expressly gave it under their hands to
the magistrate, that they were no Christians, denying their
religion in word or writing, as others did in action ; pro
fessing they were ready to sacrifice, if the magistrate should '
call them to it. Cyprian often speaks of these, and puts
them in the same class with those that actually sacrificed.
" Let not those flatter themselves," says he,3 "as if they

> Baron, an. 253. n. 20. * Vid. Albaspin. Observat. lib. i. cap. 21.
Cave Prim. Christ, lib. iii. c. v. p. 3S4. Suicer. Thesaur. torn. ii. p 240
» Cypr. de Lapsis p. 133. Nee sibi quo minus agant poenitrntiam, blandian-

CHAP. 1V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 185
were excused from doing penance, who, although they did
not defile their hands with the abominable sacrifices, yet
defiled their consciences by a libel. A Christian, that pro
fesses he denies his religion, is witness against himself, that
he abjures what he was before ; he owns in words to have
done, whatever the other did in real action." Another sort
did neither abjure, nor sign any libel or abjuration them
selves, but sent either an heathen friend, or a servant to
sacrifice or abjure in their names, and thereby procure them
a libel of security from the magistrate, as if they had done
what the others did for them. And indeed the Church
so interpreted it, and reckoned these no less criminals than
the former. The Roman clergy in their Letter to Cyprian,
condemn them both alike,1 saying, " that this latter sort,
though they were not present at the fact of delivering the
libel to the magistrate, yet they were in effect present by
commanding it to be written and presented. For he that
commands a sin to be done, cannot discharge himself of the
guilt of it ; nor can he be innocent of the crime, by whose
consent it is publicly read in court as done, though he was
not actually the doer of it. Seeing the whole mystery of
faith is summed up in confessing the name of Christ, he
that seeks by any fallacious tricks to excuse himself from
such profession, does plainly deny it : and he, who when
edicts and laws are published against the Gospel, would be
thought to comply with and observe them, does in that very
thing obey them, in that he would have the world believe
that he does obey them." The canons of Peter, bishop of
Alexandria, also take notice of this sort of libellers, and ap-

tur, qui etsi nefandis sacrifieiis manus non contaminaverunt, libellis tamen con-
scientiam polluerunt. Et ilia professio denegantis contestatio est Christiani,
quod fuerat, abnuentis ; fecisse se dixit, quicquid alius faciendo commisit.
So in the Epistle of the Roman Clergy to Cyprian. Ep. xxx. al. xxxi.
p. 57. Seipsos infideies illicita nefariorum libellorum professione prodide-
rant, quando non minus quam si ad nefarias aras accessissent, hoc ipso quod
contestati fuerant, tenerentur.
1 Ibid. Sententiam tulimus etiam adversus illos qui accepta fecissent, licet
prresentes cum fiereut non affuissent, cum praesentiam suam utique ut sic
scriberentur mandando fecissent. Non est enim immunis a scelere, qui ut
fieret impcravit : nee est alienus a criminc, cujus consensu, licet non a sc
admissum crimen, tamen publice legitur. &c.

186 ' THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
point them their punishment, making this difference between
a master, who compelled his slave to go and sacrifice for
him, and the slave, who went at his command: the slave was"
to do one year's penance, but the master is enjoined three
years, because he dissembled, and because he compelled his
fellow-servant to sacrifice: for we are all servants of the
Lord, with whom is no respect of persons. Besides these,
there was another sort of libellers, who, finding that the fury
of the judge was to be taken off by a bribe, went to him,
and told him plainly, they were Christians, and could
not sacrifice, and therefore desired him to give them a libel
of security, for which they would give him a suitable re
ward. Cyprian speaking of this sort of libellers, brings
them in thus apologising for themselves.2 " I had before
both read and learnt from the preaching of the bishop, that
the servant of God ou°;ht not to sacrifice to idols, nor
to worship images; and therefore, that I might not do
that, which is unlawful, when the opportunity of getting
a libel offered itself,- which yet I would not have ac- '
cepted, had not the occasion, presented itself, I went
to the magistrate, or employed another to go in my name,
and tell him, that I was a Christian, and that it was unlaw
ful for me to sacrifice, or come near the altars of the devils ;
that therefore I would give him a reward to excuse me
from doing that, which I could not lawfully do." Cyprian
does not wholly excuse these, but adds, " that though their
hands were not polluted with sacrifice, nor their mouths
with eating things offered to idols, yet their conscience was
defiled: but forasmuch as they seemed rather to sin out of
ignorance than maliciousness, he thinks their case a little
more favourable than those, that sacrificed ; and therefore
since some difference was made even among those, that
sacrificed, he thinks a greater allowance should be made to
these, though he does not particularly tell us what term of
penance was imposed upon them."

1 Petri, can. vi. et vii. 2 Cypr. Ep. Iii. al. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 107.
Vid. Celerin. Ep. xxi. ibid. p. 46. Etecusa pro se dona numeravit, ne sa-
¦r-rifi caret; sed tantum ascendisse videtur ad Tria Fata, et hide descendisse.

CHAP. IV. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 187

Sect. 7.— Of those who feigned themselves Mad, to avoid Sacrificing.
Not much unlike this sort of libellers, were they, who
counterfeited madness in times of persecution, to get them
selves excused by this means from being questioned, or
called upon to offer sacrifice. Some of them would go to
the very altars, and make as if they intended to sacrifice, or
subscribe the abjuration, but then they evaded the thing by
pretending to fall into a sort of epileptic fit, which inclined
the magistrates to excuse them, and let them escape, as
David by such an artifice escaped from Aehish, when he
intended to kill him. Now this was looked upon as mere
dissimulation and collusion, and only a more artful way of
denying their religion: and therefore by the penitential
rules of Peter, bishop of Alexandria,1 such, though they nei
ther sacrificed themselves, nor suborned others to sacrifice
for them, were subjected to penance for six months, because
they, in some measure, denied their religion, and made a
shew of countenancing idolatry both by their cowardice and
dissimulation.
Sect. 8. — Of Contributors to Idolatry. Of the Flamines, Munerarii, and
Coronati. What they were and how guilty of Idolatry.
And indeed it was not only the bare commission of ido
latry, that subjected men to ecclesiastical censure ; but all
promoters, encouragers, and compilers with idolatrous rites
were reputed guilty of idolatry in some degree, and accor
dingly proceeded against as betrayers of their religion.
Thus in the Council of Eliberis there -is a canon against
such Christians as took upon them the office of a Flamenot
heathen priest ,• part of whose office was to exhibit the
ordinary games or shows to the people : and if they did this,
though they abstained from sacrificing, they were to do
penance all their lives, as encouragers of idolatrous rites,
and only be admitted to communion at the hour of death,3
1 Pet. Alex. can. v. * Con. Eliber. can. iii. Item flamines,
qui non immolaverint ; sed munus tantum dederint, eo quod se a funestis
abstinuerunt sacrificiis, placuit in fine eis praestari communionem, acta ta
men legitimft poenitentia.

188 TUE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
after .sufficient evidences of a true repentance. Some learned
persons mistake the sense of this canon, understanding the
words, " Munus dare" as if they meant giving money to
the judge to excuse them from sacrificing: which would be
the same crime as the libellers were guilty of; whereas
this canon speaks not of such lapsers, but of those, who
took upon them the office of a Flamen, whose business
among other things was to give or exhibit, at his own, or
else at a public expense, the Munera, that is, the ordinary
games, or shows and pastimes to the people. For these were
called Munera? as appears from the use of the term in the
civil law : and they that g-a.ve them, were thence termed
Munerarii, the masters of the games, or the entertainers,
who kept beasts and men to fight in the amphitheatre for the
entertainment of the people, as may be seen in Tertullian3
and Seneca, and Suetonius3 and others, who speak accor
ding to the propriety of the Latin tongue. Now because
these games were held chiefly on the heathen festivals, and
in honour of their gods, and were full of idolatrous rites, as
well as cruelty and impurity, a Christian could not exhibit
them to the people, without incurring the crime of idolatry,
at least indirectly by promoting and encouraging the prac
tice of it. And for that reason this canon is so severe
against those, who furnished out these shows at their own
expense. A lower degree of this crime was, when such a
Flamen or priest neither offered sacrifices, nor exhibited the
games at his own expense, but only wore the crown,* which
was usual in such solemnities : which beinjr a badsre of ido-
latry, for that reason by another canon of that Council two
years penance, as a moderate punishment in comparison of
the former, is imposed upon them, that were so far concerned
in it. But it may be noted, that Tertullian's Invective

' Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xviii. leg. 1. Bestiis primo quoque munere ob-
jiciatur. Vid. Gothofred. in Loc. et martial, de Spectaculis. Epigram.,vi.
2 Teriul. Apcl. cap. xliv. De vestris semper munerarii noxiorum greges
pascunt. 3 Sueton. Vit. Domit. cap. x. Threcem Mirmilloni
parem, munerario imparein. 4 Con. Eliber. can. Iv. Sacerdotes,
qui tantum coronam portant, nee sacrificant, nee de suis sumptibus aliquid
ad Idola pi-ii'Stant, placuit post bicnniuni accipere communionem.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ] gg
against the soldiers' crown or garland, in his Book Ce Corona
Militis, has no relation to this matter: for the wearino- of
such a crown seems to have had no concern in relio-ion, but
to be a mere civil act done in honour of the Emperors on
such days as they gave their largesses or donations to the
soldiers. The laurel was only an ensign of victory, and
though it was dedicated to Apollo, yet that did not make
the use of it unlawful; otherwise the use of the four ele
ments and many other trees, and plants, and animals had all
been unlawful, because, as St. Austin shews,1 they were
dedicated to the gods also. Therefore learned men2 cen
sure Tertullian here, as overstraining his argument upon
this point, upon his new principles of Montanism, by which
he also denied it to be lawful for a Christian to fly in time
of persecution, or to bear arms in defence of the empire,3
contrary to his former judgment in his apology, where he
tells the Emperor, that his army was full of the disciples of
Jesus, and mentions the famous undertaking of the thun
dering legion with a great elogium and commendation.
So that this new severity of his, in condemning the Christian
soldiers for wearing a laurel-crown, must be reckoned
among those peculiarities, which he imbibed after he was
fled over from the Church to the school of Montanus ; since
we no where find soldiers condemned for this in the Catholic
Church, much less brought under any discipline or penance
for the use of it.

Sbct. 9. — How the Office of the Duumvirate made Men guilty of Idolatry,
and how it was punished.
But there is another canon in the Council of Eliberis
which orders,* " thatall Christians, who took upon them the
city magistracy or office, called the Duumvirate, should be

1 Aug. Ep. 154. ad Publicolam. 2 Vid. Baron, an. 201. u. 16.
Du Pin. Biblioth. vol. i. p. 95. Seller. Life of Tertul. p. 221.
3 Tertul. de Coron. Mil. cap. xi.
* Con. Eliber. can. Ivi. Magistratum vero uno anno, quo agit duumvira-
tum prohibendum placuit, ut se ab ecclesia cohibeat.

190 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
denied communion for the whole year, in which they held
the office, as guilty of some offence against religion." No
crime is mentioned, but idolatry is understood. For the
grounds and reasons of this canon will be easily explained
and understood from the account, that is given of this office
in the civil law. Where we learn, that the Duumviri were
the chief city magistrates, otherwise called Primates-Curice,
chosen every year, for it was but an annual office ; and it be
longed to them, as it did to the Flamines and the Pontifices,
or Sacerdotes Provinciarum, and the Prcetores and the go
vernors of provinces, or ordinary judges, to exhibit the
Spectacula, br the games and shows to the people,1 as
Gothofred shews from various laws of the Theodosian Code.8
And Tertullian not only observes the same,3 that the city
magistrates were the editors of these games ; but that the
shows themselves were founded in idolatry and attended
with many idolatrous ceremonies ; which he makes use of
as one argument why a Christian should not frequent them.
And for this reason the Council of Eliberis orders all
Christians, who took upon them the office of the Duumviri,
to be kept back from communion during the year they went
through that office; because they could not exhibit these
shows to the people without encouraging and partaking in
that idolatry, which was so closely annexed to them. " Lu-
dorum celebrationes Deorum festa sunt." Lactant. lib. vi.
c. 20.

1 Gothofred. Paratitlon. ad Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. 5. de Spectac.
5 Vide Cod. Theod. lib. xii. tit. 1. de Decurionibus. leg. 169. lib. xv. tit. 5.
de Spectaculis leg. i. 3 Tertul. de Spectac. cap. xi. Proinde
tituli Olympia Jovi, quae sunt Roma? Capitolina. Item Herculi Nenuea,
Neptuno Isthmia, ceteri mortuorum varii agones. Quid ergo mirum, si ap
paratus agonum idololatria conspurcat de coronis profanis, de sacerdotali-
bus praesidibus. &c. It. cap. xii. Haec muneris origo — Et licet transevit
hoc genus editionis ab honoribus mortuorum ad honores viventium, Quffi-
sturas dico et magistratus et flaminia et sacerdotia : cum tamen nominis dig-
nitas idololatria? crimine censeatur, necesse est quicquid dignitatis nomine
administrator, communicet etiam maculas ejus, a qua habet causas, &c.
Vid. Apolog. cap. xxxviii. et de Idolatr. cap. xiii.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. J 91

Sect. 10.— How Actors and Stage-players, and Charioteers, and other
Gamesters, and Frequenters of the Theatre and Circus were charged with
Idolatry, and punished for it.
And for the same reason all actors and stage-players, and
they, who drove the chariots in the public games, and gla
diators, and all who had any concern in the exercise or
management of these unlawful, sports, and all frequenters
of them, were obliged either to quit these practices, or be
liable to excommunication so long as they continued to fol
low them ; not only because a great deal of impurity and
cruelty was committed in them, but also because they con
tributed to the maintenance of idolatry, which was an ap
pendage of them. All these were comprised in the pomp
and service of the devil, which every Christian had re
nounced at his baptism ; and therefore, when any one return
ed to them, he was charged as a renouncer of his baptis
mal covenant, and thereupon discarded, as an apostate and
relapser, from Christian communion. Thus Cyprian being
consulted by Eucratius,1 whether a stage-player might
communicate, who continued to follow that dishonourable
trade ; he answers, " that it was neither agreeable to the
majesty of God, nor the discipline of the Gospel, that the
modesty and honour of the Church should be defiled with
so base and infamous a contagion." The Council of
Eliberis2 allows stage-players to be baptised only upon con
dition, that they renounced their arts, and entirely bid adieu
to them : and if after baptism they returned to them again,
they were to be cast out of the Church. The first Council
of Aries has a like decree,3 " that all public actors belonging
to the theatre, shall be denied communion, so long as they
continue to act." And the third Council of Carthage* sup-

1 Cypr. Ep. lxi. al. ii. ad Eucratium p. 3. Puto nee majestati divinae
nee evangelicae disciplinae congruere, ut pudor et honor ecclesiae tam turpi
et infami contagione foedetur. 2 Con. Eliber. can. lxii. Si panto-
mimi credere voluerint, placuit ut prius artibus suis renuncient, et tunc de-
milm suscipiantur, ita ut ulterius non revertantur. Quod si facere contra
interdictum tentaverint, perjiciantur ab ecclesia. 3 Con. Arelat i.
can. 5. De theatricis, et ipsos placuit, quamdiu agunt, a communiohe separari.
* Con. Carth. iii. can. 35. Ut scenicis atque histribnibus, ceterisque hujus-

192 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
poses the sentence of excommunication to pass upon all
such, when it says, " that actors and stage-players, and all
apostates of that kind, shall not be denied pardon and recon
ciliation, if they return unto the Lord." This implies, that
they were gone astray and cast out of the Church for their
crimes, since they needed pardon and reconciliation, to take
off their censure and restore them. The first Council of
Aries1 determines the same in the case of those, who
drove the chariots in the public games, that so long as
they continued in that employment, they should be denied
communion. Tertullian2 and others say expressly, that these
arts were part of those pomps and worship of Satan, which
men renounced in baptism. And it appears from a rule in
the Constitutions,3 that no charioteer, or gladiator, or racer,
or curator of the public games, or practicer in the Olympic
games, or minstrel, or harper, or dancer, was to be admitted
to baptism, unless they immediately quitted these unlawful
callings. And it was no less a crime to frequent the thea
tre, and be spectators of these idolatrous practices, as is
noted in the same rule of the Constitutions. Therefore as
an obstinate adherence to these things debarred catechu
mens from baptism, so it likewise excluded baptised persons
or believers from the privilege of communion.
Sect. 11. — Idol-Makers, their Crime and Punishment.
Another way of contributing- to the practice of idolatry,
was the art or trade of making idols for the worshippers of
them. Many Christians, who abhorred the worship of idols
themselves, made no scruple to make idols for others, and
live by this calling ; which was reputed a very scandalous
profession, tending indirectly and consequentially to the
upholding and promoting of idolatry. For which reason,
no man professing this art could be admitted to baptism,

modi personis, vel apostaticis, conversis vel reversis ad Dominum, gratia
vel reconciliatio non negetur. » Con. Arelat. i. can. iv. De
agitatoribus, qui fideles sunt, placuit eos, quamdiu agitant, a communione
separari. 2 Tertul. de Spectac. cap. iv. De Co'ron. Mil.
cap. xiii. Salvian. de Provid. lib. vi. p. 197. Cyril. Catech. Myst. i. n. 4.
" Constit. lib. viii. cap. xxxii.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 193
unless he promised to, renounce it, as we learn from the
Author of the Constitutions.1 And what denied a man one
sacrament would also deny him the other. Tertullian calls
such,2 " proctors and purveyors for idolatry," inveighing
against this and some other trades of the like nature.
;' When you help," says he, " to furnish out the pomp, the
priesthood, the sacrifices of idols, what can you be called
but procurers for idols % all heinous sins, for the greatness
of the danger attending them, ought to make us extremely
cautious, to keep at a distance not only from them, but
from all things that minister to the practice of them. For
though a crime be committed by others, it is all one, if I
am instrumental to the commission of it. By the same reason
that I am forbidden to do it, I ought to take care that it be
not done by my assistance. I must not be a necessary aid
to another in doing that, which I may not lawfully do my
self." Upon these grounds he concludes the trade of ma
king idols to be unlawful, as well as the worship of them.
And. so did Clemens Alexandrinus,3 and Justin Martyr*
before him. Tertullian objects it as a great crime to
Hermogenes,5 that he followed the trade of painting'
images. But that, which is most material to our pur
pose here, is his observation,6 which he makes in his
Book of Idolatry upon the punishment due to such, as
made a livelihood of this unlawful calling, that any one,
who followed it, ought not to have access to the house of
God. For it was contrary to the faith which they had pro
fessed in baptism.7 " How have we renounced the devil
and his angels, if we still continue to make them % what
divorce have we made from them, with whom we not only
continue to live, but live upon them'? what disagreement is

' Constit. lib. viii. cap. 32. 2 Tertul. de Idol. cap. xi. Certe cum
pompae, cum sacerdotia, cum sacrificia idolorum instruuntur  quid aliud
quam procurator idolorum demonstraris 1 &c. 8 Clem. Protreptic. ad
Gentes. p. 54. Edit. Oxon. * Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 321.
5 Tertul. cont. Hermog. cap. i. Pingit licite, nubit assidue : legem Dei in
libidinem defendit, in artem conteranit bis falsarius et cauterio et stilo.
6 De Idololat. cap. v. Hujusmodi artifices nunquam in domum Dei. ad-
mitti oportet, si quis efim disciplinam ndrit. ' Ibid. cap. vi.
VOL. VI. ' O '

194 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
there between us and them, to whom we are obliged for our
maintenance and livelihood? can you deny that with your
tongue, which you confess with your hand % can you
destroy that in words, which you raise up in your actions ]
preach one God, and make so many 1 preach the true God,
and make false ones'? But, say you, I only make them, I
do not worship them. As if the same reason which for
bids you to worship them, did not also forbid you to make
them. Yea, you worship them, in doing that, which causes
them to be worshipped. And you worship them not with
the spirit of any vile nidor, or smell of a sacrifice, but with
your own spirit : not with the life of a sheep bestowed on
them, but with your own soul. To them you sacrifice your
own ingenuity, to them you offer your labour, to them you
burn your prudence and understanding. You are more than
a priest to them, since by your means it is that they have
a priest. Your diligence is their deity. Do you then deny
that you worship that, to which you give its very being and
existence % but they themselves do not deny it, to whom
you offer a fatter, and more costly, and greater sacrifice,
even your own salvation." Thus far Tertullian, who not
withstanding seems to complain, that there was a great
remissness in the exercise of discipline upon such offenders.
For he immediately adds,1 " One might declaim all the day
long with a zeal of faith upon this point, and bewail such
Christians as come straight from their idols into the Church,
from the shop of the adversary into the house of God, and
there lift up to God the Father, those very hands, which are
the mothers or makers of idols ; adoring God in the Church
with those hands, which without doors are themselves
adored in the idols, which they have made against God ; and
taking the body of the Lord into those hands, wherewith
they have prepared and given bodies to the devils. Nor is
this all. It were but a small thing to defile that body,
which they receive from the hands of others, but those very
hands deliver it to others, which have first defiled it. For
the makers of idols are sometimes chosen into the holy or-

1 Tertul. Du Idol. cap. \ii.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH, | <J5
ders of the Church. O monstrous wickedness ! The Jews
once laid hands upon Christ, but these every day treat his
body despitefully. O hands that ought to be cut off!"
If Tertullian here does not make too severe an invective,
and calumniate the Church, it must be owned there was
some neglect in the exercise of discipline, to suffer such
offenders not only to communicate, but take orders in the
Church, who by the rules of discipline ought not to com
municate in the Christian body in any quality whatsoever.
Sect. 12.— The Idolatry of building or adcming Heathen Altars and
Temples.
Tertullian in the same book brings the charge ^of idola
try against all other artificers, who contributed toward the
worship of idols, either by erecting altars, or building
temples, or making shrines, or beautifying and adorning
the idols, or any thing belonging to them. For it was the
same thing,1 whether a man made an idol or only adorned
it. He, that built a temple, or erected an altar, to an idol,
or overlaid it with gold, did rather more toward its worship,
than he, that made it : for the one only gave it an effigies,
the other gave it authority ; procuring veneration to be paid
to it as a god. Upon this score all, who thus contributed
toward the worship of idols, though they did not actually
sacrifice to them, were ranked in the same class with ido
laters, and accordingly subjected to the censures of the
Church. Which appears from that famous remonstrance,
which St. Ambrose made to the Emperor Valentinian,2
when he was solicited by Symmachus the heathen to re
store the altar of Victory in the Capitol. He told him
plainly, that if he did this, no bishop would receive him ,to
communion, but every one courageously repel him, and be

1 Tertul. de Idol. cap. viii. Nee enim ditfert, an extruas, vel exornes :
si templum, si aram, si aediculam ejus instruxeris, si 'bracteam expresseris
aut insignia, aut etiam domum fabricaveris. Major est ejusmodi opera
quai non effigiem confert, sed auctoritatein. 2 Ambrose
Ep. xxx. ad Valentin. Junior. Ara Christi dona tua rcspuit, quia aram,
simulacris fecisti. Sec chap. iii. n. 5.
o 2

196 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK Xvi.
ready to give him a good reason for their opposition : " they
will tell you," says he, " that the Church desires not your
gifts, because you have adorned the temples of the heathen
with your gifts": the altar of Christ refuses your oblations,
because you have erected an altar to the idol-gods." The
case of Marcus Arethusius is famous in story, who chose ra
ther to suffer death under Julian than rebuild a temple,
which he had demolished by law in the time of Constanthi9,
as is related at large by Gregory Nazianzen and
Sozomen.' And Theodoret highly commends Audas,2
a Persian bishop, for that, having demolished a Pyrceum, a
temple where the Persians worshipped fire as a god,
though he did this without any legal authority, yet he fa
ther chose to suffer death than rebuild it ; because it was
the same thing to build a temple to the idol as to worship
it. And St. Chrysostom says,3 it was a very common thing
in the time of Julian to call upon all those, who had been
concerned in demolishing temples in the preceding reigns
of Constantine and Constantius, and prosecute them to
death, because they refused to rebuild them.

Sect. 13,--Of Merchants selling Frankincense to the Idol Temples,
and the Buyers and Sellers of the public Victims.
Among other promoters and encouragers of idolatry, they
reckoned all merchants selling frankincense to the idol
temples, and all who made a trade of buying and selling the
public victims. Tertullian styles all these, " Procurators
idololatria, purveyors for idolatry." And he expressly
says of those, who bought and sold the public victims,1
" That ho Church would receive them to baptism, without
obliging them to renounce that unlawful profession, nor

1 Naz. Orat.i. in Julian, p. 90. Sozom. lib. v. cap. 9. Theod. lib. iii.
cap. 7. 2 Theod. lib. v. cap. 38.
3 Chrys. Horn. 4'J. in Juventinum et Maximum, torn i. p. 548.
* Tertul. de Idol. cap. xi. Si publicarum victimarum redeinptor ad fidem
accedat, permittes ei in eo negotio permanere ? Aut si jam fidelis id agere
Miseeperit, rctinendum in ecclesia putabis? Non opinor.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 197
suffer them to continue in her communion , if they were al
ready of the number of the faithful." And hence he argues
more strongly against the Thurarii, as he terms those, who
made a livelihood of selling frankincense to the temples,
which he reckons the worse of the two. '•' With what face
can the Christian seller of frankincense,1 if he chance to go
through a temple, spit at the smoking altars, and shew his
detestation of those idols, for which he himself has been
the purveyor \ with what heart or courage can. he pretend
to exorcise those devils, to whom he has been a foster-
father, and made his house a shop to furnish materials for
their service V Hence upon the whole matter he concludes,
" That no art, profession, business, or trade,, could be
wholly free from the imputation of idolatry, which was in
strumental and subservient either in making of idols, or
furnishing out what was necessary to the support of their
worship and service."
Sect. 14. — Of eating Things dffered to Idols. How and when it stood
chargeable with Idolatry.
The case of eating things offered to idols is resolved
by the Apostle, lt was never lawful to do it in an idol
temple, because that was to partake of the sacrifice as a
sacrifice, and to communicate with devils ; which was an
hardening of the Gentiles, and a scandal to the Church of
God. The Nicolaitans are condemned for this in Scripture,
and the practice of the Basilidians and Valentinians,2 by
writers of the following ages. The Acts of Lucian the
martyr tell us,3 he chose rather to die with hunger, than
to eat things offered to idols, when his persecutors would
allow him no other sustenance in prison. And Baronius
gives another such instance in the people of Constanti
nople,* who, when Julian had ordered all the meat in the

1 Tertul. de Idol. cap. xi. Quo ore Christianus thurarius, si per templa
transibit, quo ore fumantes aras despuet, et exsufflabit, quibus ipse pros-
pexit? Qua constantia exorcizabit alumnos suos, quibus domum suam cel-
lariam praestat 1 2 Agrippa Castor, ap. Euseb. lib. iv,
cap. 7. Irenae. lib. i. cap. 1. s Ap. Baron. An. 311. n. 6,
* Baron. An, 362. p. 24 ,

198 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
shambles to be polluted with idolatrous lustrations,
freely abstained from it, and used boiled corn instead of
bread, so defeating the tyrant's malicious intention. Not
that it had been any idolatry to have eaten such meat in such
a case : foT the Apostle allows it, where it may be done
without either communicating with the idols, or giving
scandal to the weak: " Whatever is sold in the shambles,
eat, asking no questions for conscience sake." And upon
this warrant of the Apostle Theodoret justifies the people
of Antioch in another such case.1 For Julian made use of
the same devilish stratagem to ensnare them, polluting all
the fountains of Antioch and Daphne, and all the meat in
the shambles with his idolatrous rites, and all the bread and
fruits of the earth and herbs, that the Christians might
have nothing to eat, but what was offered in sacrifice to
idols. Which is also noted by Chrysostom,3 and others,
who speak of the diabolical wiles of Julian. But in this
case the Christians made no scruple of eating any thing,
notwithstanding the policy of their adversary, as knowing
that the good creatures of God could not be defiled by any
such wicked contrivances, so long as they did not consent
to them, or communicate in them : " For the earth is the
Lord's and the fulness thereof," and what was sanctified to
them by the word of God and prayer, could not be unsanc-
tified or polluted by any profane abuses.
Sect. 15, — Whether a Christian out of Curiosity might be present at
an Idol Sacrifice, not joining in the Service.
But where there was any real communication with ido
latry, or any just ground for a suspicion of it, it was' at
no hand allowable to give the least countenance to it, or
any umbrage to surmise an approbation of it. For this rea
son the Council of Eliberis forbids any Christian to go to
the Capitol,3 or idol temple, so much as only out of curio-
1 Theod. lib. iii. cap. 15. » Chrys. Horn. iv. deLaudi-
bus Pauli. torn. v. p. 593. s Con. Eliber. can. 69. Pro
hibenduni ne quis ChristianUs, ut Gentilis ad idolum Capitolii causa sacri-
ficandi, ascendat et videat? quod si fecerit, pari crimine teneatur. Si
fuerit fidelis, post decern annos, acta poenitentia recipiatur.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 199
sity to see the sacrifice offered, under the penalty of ten
years penance imposed upon them. Albaspiny rightly ob
serves,1 that though there be a little obscurity in the original
wording of the canon, yet it must needs intend to prohibit
the going to see the sacrifice : for otherwise, if they went
to sacrifice, not only a ten years penance, but a penance for
their whole lives was imposed upon them by the two first
Canons of this Council. So that the plain sense of the
canon must be, that if, as a heathen went to sacrifice, so a
Christian went only to see the sacrifice, he should be held
guilty of the same crime, and do ten years penance for it.
Yet this was to be understood, if he had no other call but
curiosity to carry him thither: for if by any necessary office
or duty of his station he went thither, this was no crime."
as if he was of the prince's guard, and only went to attend
his sovereign, he was guiltless, because he went not to see
the sacrifice, but to do his duty. Thus Theodoret says,3
Valentinian, when he was a tribune and captain of the guard
to Julian, attended his master to the temple of Fortune ;
but when the door-keepers according to custom sprinkled
their lustral or holy water upon those that went in, and a
drop of it fell upon his coat, he gave the man a blow upon
the face, telling him, he did not think himself purified but
profaned. And by this act, says Theodoret, he merited two
kingdoms, both an earthly and an heavenly. For Julian
immediately banished him for the fact, and confined him to
a castle in the desert: but before a year and a few months
were past, this noble confessor was rewarded with the im
perial crown and the dignity of the Roman Empire. By this
it appears, they put a great difference between going
to a temple outofmereimpertinency and curiosity to see the
idolatrous rites and sacrifices, and going thither only upon
the necessary obligations of their duty and function. And
Tertullian, who is as severe as any in this matter, owns the
reasonableness of this distinction. " It were to be wished,"
says he,3 " that we could live without seeing those things,

1 Albasp. in Loc. 2 Theod. lib. iii. cap. 16. Item
Sozomen. lib. vi. cap. 6. * Tertul. de Idol. cap. 16 and 17.

200 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
which we cannot lawfully practice : but because idolatry
has so filled the world with evils, a man may be present in
some cases, where duty binds him to the man, and not to
the idol. If I am called to a priesthood or to a sacrifice
I will not go: for that is the proper office or service of the
idol : neither will I contribute by my counsel, or my ex
pense, or my labour to any such thing. If when I am
called to a sacrifice, I go and assist, I am partaker of the
idolatry: but if any other cause joins me to the sacrificer,
I am only a spectator of the sacrifice. He applies this par
ticularly to slaves waiting on their heathen masters, and
children or clients on their patrons or parents, and officers
on governors and judges. If we are careful to observe
this rule, neither by word nor deed to give any assistance
to the idolatrous service, we may attend on magistrates and
powers, after the example of the patriarchs and others of
our ancestors, who waited on idolatrous kings, — usque ad
finem idololatriee, as far as the confines of idolatry would
permit them." He gives the same resolution in some other
private and common cases, as a Christian's being obliged to
attend the solemnity of giving a youth the Toga Virilis, the
habit of a man, the solemnity of espousals or nuptials, or
the manumission of a slave,1 or giving him a new name.
For all these things were innocent in themselves: and
though idolatrous rites were usually mixed with them, yet
a man might be present without communicating in those
rites, distinguishing the causes, which required his attend
ance. They were pure and clean in their own nature : for
neither does the habit of a man, nor the ring of espousals,
nor the joining of- man and woman in marriage, descend
originally from any honour of an idol : for all these things
are allowed by God ; and though sacrifices were used in
the ceremony, yet a man whose office and business was not.

1 Tertul. fle Idol. cap. xvi. Circa officia vero privatarum et communium
solennitatum, ut togae purae, ut sponsalium, ut nuptialium, ut nominalium,
nullum putem periculum observari de afflatu idololatriae, quae intervenit.
Causa? enim sunt considerandas, quibus praestatur officium. Eas mundas
esse opinor per semetipsas, quia neque vestitus virilis, neque annulus, aut
conjunctio maritalis de alicujus idoli honore deseendit. /

CHAP. IV. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 201
in the sacrifice, but required upon some other account,
might lawfully attend them without defilement. This was
the resolution of all such cases, where some obligation of
office or duty required a man's presence at some idolatrous
service ; not as contributing any ways his assistance in it,
or communicating either directly or indirectly in the service,
but only performing what properly belonged to him by vir
tue of his lawful employment ; and being ready, like Valen
tinian, to show his aversion to all superstitious and idola
trous rites, when any more peculiar occasion required it.
The being present barely to perform some other duty, was
not interpreted in this case any communicating with idola
try, because the very tenour of his obligation and duty suf
ficiently demonstrated it to be otherwise.
Sect. 16. — Whether he might eat his own Meat in an Idol Temple.
But where a man had no such necessary call or obliga
tion to perform any duty that required his presence in a
temple, then to be present at an idolatrous service, or do
any thing that might look with a suspicious aspect towards
it, was a sufficient reason to bring him under ecclesiastical
censure. Thus no one could pretend any just reason to
carry his own meat and eat it in an idol temple, but this
must needs imply some disposition towards idolatry : and
therefore the Council of Ancyra made a decree,1 that such
as feasted with the heathen upon any idol festival in any
place set apart for that service, though they carried their
own meat and eat it there, should do two years penance for
it. The canon does not expressly call the place an idol
temple, but ToVov d<pwpuriiivov, a place set apart for the
service ;" which, whether we take it for a temple, or any
other place of feasting, is all ona, since it was a place ap
propriated to the worship of the idol on a festival peculiarly
dedicated to the honour of some heathen god.

Con. Ancyr. can. vii.

202 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Sbct. 17.— Or feast with the Heathen on their Idol Festivals.
And this sort of feasting with the heathens on their pro
per festivals, whether in a temple or out of a temple, was
precisely forbidden under the notion of communicating with
them in their impiety. Which are the express words of the
Council of Laodicea, prohibiting this practice of keeping
such festivals with the Gentiles.1 Among the Apostolical
Canons,2 there is also one that forbids Christians to carry oil
to any heathen temple, or Jewish synagogue, or to set up
lights ou their festivals under the penalty of excommunica
tion. Which shews, that Christians were sometimes in
clined to concur with the Heathens in this practice.
And this seems to be the most rational sense that can be
given of those two canons of the Council of Eliberis, which
so much trouble interpreters ;3 the one of which forbids the
lighting wax-candles by day in the cemeteries or burying-
places of the martyrs, for fear of disquieting the spirits of
the saints, under the penalty of excommunication : and the*
other prohibits the setting up of lamps in public under
the same penalty of being cast out of the communion of the
Church. Albaspiny thinks these orders were made upon a
mistaken notion, that the souls of the martyrs were still
waiting under the altars ; which, he says, was the opinion
of Cyprian and Tertullian.5 But it is more probable, that
the Council forbad these rites upon another ground, because
they were superstitious and idolatrous rites used by the hea
then in their solemnities, as is expressly said by Tertullian,8
and many others collected by Baronius.7 And this seems

1 Con. Laodic. can xxxix. Ovtit rotg iSyeai avvtopTaZav k, Kotvwveiv Ty
o&Eiiirjjri avTov. s Canon. Apost. lxxi. 3 Con. Eliber. can. xxxiv.
Cereos per diem placuit in Coemeterio non incendi. Inquietandi enim sanc
torum spiritus non sunt. Qui haec non observaverint, arceantur ab ecclesia
communione. * Ibid. can. xxxvii. Prohibendi etiain ne
lucernas publice accendant. Si facere contra interdictum voluerint, abstineant
a communione. s Cypr. De Lapsis. De Bono Patientiae.
Tertul. De Resur. Carnis. cap. xxv. De Anima. cap. viii. Contra Gnosticos.
cap. xi. 6 Tertul. Apol. cap. xxxv, and xlvi. De Idololat.
cap. xv. T Baron. An. lviii. n. 72.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 203
to be the true reason why the Council forbad them that
Christians might not symbolize with the heathens in such
superstitious practices. But to proceed, the heathen festin
vais are known in the civil law under the general name of
Vota, and Votorum Celebritas, solemn days of prayer and
worship of their gods. And as Gothofred has accurately
distinguished them, they comprised. 1. All their Ludi or
days of public shows, which were in honour of their Gods.
Among which the Maiuma is very famous, there being a
title in the Theodosian Code3 concerning the permission,
and regulation of it under the Christian Emperors, till at last
it was finally put down by Arcadius. 2. Their other days
of public feasting. 3. The Kalends of January or begin
ning of the new year. Against the superstitious observa
tions of which there are frequent invectives in the writings
of the Ancients, particularly in St. Ambrose,3 Asterius Ama-
senus,* and Priidentius.8 4. The third of January, whifch
was a noted festival or day of heathen devotion for the Ein-
peror's safety. Among these may be also reckoned their
Bromialia, forbidden by the Council of Trullo :6 and the
Neomenia, or new moons, against which St. Chrysostom
has a whole discourse to dissuade Christians from the obser
vation of them : where he particularly inveighs against the
impious superstition,7 that was still reigning in men's hearts,.
as the relics of paganism. For they were superstitiously
addicted to observation of times, and made divination and
conjectures upon them ; as, if they spent the new moon
of such a month in mirth and pleasure, the whole year fol
lowing would be prosperous and lucky to them. So both
men and women gave themselves to intemperance and ex--
cess on these days, out of this diabolical persuasion, as he
justly terms it, that the good, or bad fortune of the rest of the
year depended npon such an ominous beginning of it. Which
was the devil's invention to ruin the practiee of all virtue.

1 Gothof. in. Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 10. De Paganis.leg. 8.
» Cod. Theod. De Maiuma. lib. xv, tit. 6. s Ambros. Serm. 17.
* Aster. Horn. 4. De Pesto Kalendarum. 6 Prudent, cont.
Symmachum. lib. i. • Con. Trull, can. 62, &65.
7 Chrys. Horn. 23. In eos, qui Novilunia observant, torn. i. p. 297.

204 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
He observes further,1 that they were used in the celebra
tion of these times to set up lamps in the market place,
and crown their doors with garlands, which he condemns
together with their superstition and intemperance, as a mix
ture of diabolical pomp, and childish folly. By which we see
how prone men were to follow the heathen in such practices,
even when they were delivered both from their ignorance
and compulsion : and much more, may we suppose, were
they under a temptation to comply with them in the obser
vation of their festivals, whilst they were under the terror
of their laws and violent persecutions. Nay, even in St.
Austin's time the heathen were so insolent in Afric, as to
compel the Christians to observe their festivals, of which
the African Fathers, in the fifth Council of Carthage,2 were
forced to complain to the Emperor Honorius, and petition
him by his authority to redress the grievance ; hey repre
sent to him, how the Pagans in many places, not only
kept their superstitious feasts themselves, but forced the
Christians to join with them ; so that it looked like a secret
persecution under Christian Emperors : wherefore they de
sired him -to make a law to prohibit them both in, city and
country, and restrain them by some suitable penalty inflic
ted on them. Which at first Honorius refused to grant, but
afterward he complied with their request upon more mature
deliberation. The law is still extant in the Theodosian
Code,3 forbidding all holding of feasts "or other solemnities in
temples in honour of the gods ; and enjoining all bishops
and judges of the provinces to take care of the execution
of it. Yet this did not so root out the superstition, but that
many heathens still continued in it ; and some looser
Christians were ready enough, either to join with the hea-

1 Chrys. Horn. 23. p. 300. 2 Con. Carth. v. can. !>.
Illud etiam petendum, ut quoniam contra praecepta divina, convivia multis
locis exercentur, quae ab errore Gentili attracta sunt, ita ut nunc a Paganis
Christiani ad haec celebranda cogantur, ex qua re temporibus Christiano
rum Imperatorum persecutio altera fieri occulte videatur, vetari talia ju-
beant et de civitatibus, et de possessionibus imposita poenS. prohibere, &c,
Vid. Cod. Afr.can. 63. s Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 10.
De Paganis. leg. xix. Non liceat omnino in honorem sacrilegi ritfis funes*
tioribus locis exercere convivia, &c.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. S05
then in their practices, or at least to imitate the luxury and
Vanity of them under the notion of Christian observations.
St. Austin makes a bitter complaint in one of his Epistles,1
of the insolence of the Heathen immediately after the
publishing of this law : how upon one of their festivals
on the Kalends of June, they came dancing in a petulant
manner before the doors of the church : which when the
clergy endeavoured to prohibit, they stoned the church :
and when the bishop complained to the judges, they stoned
it again, and a third time, setting fire to the houses belong
ing to the church, and killing some of the clergy, and caus
ing others to fly for their lives. "An insolent and daring
attempt, not to be paralleled by any thing," he says, " that
was done in the time of Julian." And what was worse than
all, no one of the magistrates or chief men of the place
either offered to quell the riot, or give any assistance to the
sufferers, except a stranger of some authority, who deli
vered many of the servants of God out of their hands,
whilst the rest only looked on the abuse with pleasure, and
some of them were strongly suspected as working under
hand to excite this tumult and set the Heathen upon them,
being grieved at this new law, which laid a restraint upon
these festivals, in which they were wont to take so much
pleasure. Which shews how deeply the love of- these hea
then festivals was rooted in the hearts of many carnal and
libertine Christians. In another Epistle he makes as sad a
complaint lo Aurelius, bishop of Carthage,2 of the intempe
rance and debauchery, which many such Christians were
wont to commit upon the festivals of their own martyrs,
and other anniversary commemorations of their deceased

1 Aug. Ep. 202. adNectarium. Contra recentissimas leges Kalendis Juniis
festo Paganorum sacrilega solennitas agitata est, nemine prohibente, tam
insolenti ausu, ut quod nee Julian.! temporibus factum est, petulantissima
turba saltantium in ebdem prorsus vico ante fores transiret ecclesiae, &c.
2 Aug. Ep. lxiv. ad Aurelium. Comessationes et Ebrietates ita concessffi
et licitas putantur, ut in honorem etiam Beatissimorum Martyrum, non solum
per dies solennes, quod ipsum quis non lugendum videat, qui haec non carnis
occulis inspicit, sed etiam quotidie celebrentur. — Istae in ccemeteriis ebrie
tates et luxuriosa convivia, non solum honores martyrum a carnali et impe-
rita plebe credi soient sed etiam solatia mortuorum.

206 THE ANTIQUITIES OP THE [BOOK XVI,
friends ; which was only acting all the impurity of the hea
then festivals under the name of Christian. He prays him
therefore to take some method, to drive away such profane
and sacrilegious impurities from the house of God.'1
But he thinks this could not be done by any rough
methods, or in any imperious way, but by instruction,
rather than commanding ; and by admonition, rather than
threatening: for that was the only way to deal with a
multitude:3 the severity of discipline was only to be exer
cised upon sinners, when their numbers were small. This
is a grievous complaint indeed, and he often repeats it
in other places ¦? which shews how close the super
stition and pleasure of the heathen festivals stuck to the
hearts of many ignorant and carnal men, even after they
became Christian : and their multitudes in Afric were so great,
•that though their crimes deserved the severity of excommu
nication, yet St. Austin in such circumstances could not think
that the proper remedy to cure the distemper. St. Ambrose
and other Italian bishops, he says, did happily root out this
evil custom, and that was some ground to hope it might be
effected in Afric. But yet long after this we find the com
plaint renewed against Christians retaining the relics of hea
then superstition in this matter of observing festivals. For the
Council of Trullo has a canon,* that forbids the observation
of the Kalends, and the Bota, and the Brumalia, and the
solemnity of the first of March, or May, as diff'erent copies
read it, and the publie dancings, and other ceremonies used
by men and women, as handed down by ancient custom
under the names of the heathen false Gods : prohibiting
likewise the interchanging of habits in men and women,

. ' Aug. Ep. lxiv. Saltern de sanctorum corporumsepulchris, saltern de locis
sacramentorum, de domibus orationum tantum dedecus arceatur. s Ibid.
Non aspere, quantum existimo, non duriter, non modo imperioso ista tollun-
tur, magis docendo, quam jubendo ; magis monendo quam minando. Sic
¦enim agendum est cum multitudine ; severitas autem exercenda est in pec
cata paucorum. 3 Aug. cont. Faustum. lib. xx. cap. 21.
De Civ. Deilib. viii. cap. 27.
"* Con. Trull, can. 62. Tdc Xiyojikvag KaXavtdg, i§ ra XiySficva Bora, i, rit
xaXifUva JipufiaXia, (^ ri\v iv Ty irpiiiry r« MapHe jiqvbg iTriTeXa/icvtiv iravi]-
,yvpiv KaScmaZ, ek rrjg twv iriTwv ToXirhag Tripiaiptkrjva jfaXo/ieia. &c.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 20?
and wearing of comical and tragical masks, ahd satirical
dresses, and calling upon the name of Bacchus in treading
the wine press, with some other such ridiculous vanities, pro
ceeding from the imposture of the devil. The Kalends here
signify the first of January. The Bota is explained by Bal
zamon, and others who follow him, the feast of the God
Pan, because Bora signifies sheep : but Gothofred1 and Su-
icerus3 more judiciously render it Vota, it being only the
Latin name Vota turned into Greek, and denoting the hea
then festival on the third of January for the safety of the
Emperor. The Brumalia is by Balzamon understood of
the feast of Bacchus : but it may be better explained from
Tertullian, who among many other heathen festivals,
which some Christians were very much inclined to observe,
reckons the Brumce, or Brumalia, and objects it by way
of reproach to such Christians,3 " That they were not so
true to their religion, as the heathens were to theirs : for
the heathens would never observe any Christian solemnity,
either the Lord's day or pentecost, or any other : they will
not communicate with us in these things ; for they are afraid
of being thought Christians : but we are not afraid of being-
thought heathens, whilst we celebrate their Saturnalia,
and Januarice, and Brumce, and Matronales, and mutually
send presents and new year's gifts, and observe their sports
and feasts." Where by the Brumce, learned men under
stand,* not the feasts of Bacchus, but the festivals of the
Winter-Solstice, properly called Bruma, from which they
made a conjecture, whether the remainder of winter would
prove fortunate to them or not. This superstition, being a
relic of old paganism, continued in the minds of many

1 Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 10. De Paganis. leg. viii. p.-270.
s Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. Tom. i. p. 706. It. Casaubon et Reinesius. ibi-<
dem. " Tertul. de Idol. cap. xiv. Saturnalia, et Janu-
ariffl, et Brumae, et Matronales frequentantur, munera commeant, strenaJ
consonant, lusus, convivia constrepunt. O raelior fides Nationum in suam
sectam : quae nullam solennitatem Christianorum sibi vindicat, non Doraini-
cum Diem, non Pentecosten. Etiamsi nossent non communicassent ; timerent
enim ne Christiani videreutur. Nos, ne ethnici pronunciemur, non veremur.
It. cap. x. Etiam strenae captanda? et septimontiuin et brumae, &c.
1 Vid. Lunium in Loc; et Hospinian'. de Fcstis Ethnicorum. cap. xxviii. p. 127.

208 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Christians to the time of the Council of Trullo, Anno 692.
Which was the reason why this Council forbad it, with
many other observations of the like nature, under the pe
nalty of excommunication ; which, as we have seen, was
always the punishment of such crimes, except when the
multitude of offenders, as St. Austin says, made it impos
sible to exercise the severity of ecclesiastical discipline upon
them. Sect. 18.— Of the Idolatry of worshipping Angels, Saints, Martyrs,
Images, &c.
I take no notice here of the idolatry that might be com
mitted in the worship of angels, or saints and martyrs, or
the Virgin Mary, or images, or the eucharist, because I
have had occasion before to speak more at large of these in
several parts of this work.1 And it will be sufficient here
only to observe in general, that none but professed heretics
were ever accused of this sort of idolatry in the primitive
ages, such as the Angelici, for worshipping angels, and the
Simonians and Carpocrations for worshipping images, and
the Collyridians for worshipping the Virgin Mary : and these
being heretics by profession, there is no question, but that
the censures of the Church were inflicted on them, and all
such as adhered to or went over to them ; which is suffi
cient to remark here for explaining and confirming the exer
cise of discipline in the Church.
Sect. 19. — Of Encouragers of Idolatry and Connivers at it.
There is but one thing more to be noted concerning the
practice of idolatry, which is, that all favourers and encou
ragers of idolatry were equally reputed guilty of the crime
with idolaters themselves, as partaking in their sin. If a
master sent his servant to sacrifice for him, the act was the
servant's, but the guilt rebounded on the master's head, as
the principal author of it, as we have seen before in the case
of the Libellatiei, who employed their servants to sacrifice
for them. If a judge, who was obliged by his office to ex-

See Book viii. chap. viii. Book xiii. chap. iii.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 209
tirpate idolatry, when the laws gave him authority and
power to do it, did either publicly neglect his duty, or secretly
connive at the practice of idolaters, he was reputed guilty
of the crime by participation. Thus St. Austin charges the
magistrates of a certain city, as criminals in this respect,1
" That when the laws had empowered them to root out all
the remainders of idolatry, they were negligent and remiss
in putting them in execution :" though the laws themselves,
to which3 he refers, " Had laid a penalty of twenty pounds
in gold upon any judge, or officer belonging to him, if by
any dissimulation of theirs the force of the law, prohibi
ting heathen festivals, was fraudulently evaded." So be
fore idolatry was forbidden by the imperial laws, whilst
under the countenance of Heathen Emperors it rode trium
phant, Christians were obliged not only to abstain from
sacrificing themselves, but to lend no helping hand by their
authority to the sacrifices ; not to make a trade of selling
victims ; not to be a guardian or curator of any temple, or
collector of their revenues ; not to exhibit the public games
and shows, either at his own expense, or the expense of
the public, or so much as preside in them, when they were
acted ; not to use any of their solemn words or forms pecu
liar to idolatrous worship, nor to swear by the names of
their gods : all which Tertullian remarks and puts together
in one place f giving this as a reason why a Christian, under
an heathen government, could not safely take upon him the
office of a judge ; because that post would oblige him to
countenance idolatry, either by his authority, or some other
of those ways, which he could not do without injuring his
conscience and doing violence to the laws of his own reli
gion, which do not allow a man to help forward the practice

1 Aug. Ep. 202. s Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. Tit. 10.
De Paganis. leg. xix. Judices autem viginti librarium auri poena costringi-
mus, et pari forma officia eorum, si hajc eorum fuerint dissimulatione ne-
g]ecta, " Tertul. de Idol. cap. xvii. Neque sacrificct,
neque sacrificiis auctoritatem suam nccommodet, non hostias locet, non
euras templorum deleget, non vectigalia eorum procuret, non spectacula
edat de suo aut de publico, aut edendis pra;sit : nihil solenne pronunciet vel
edicet, ne juret quidem.
VOL. VI. p

210 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
of idolatry in others. And for this reason the Council of
Eliberis1 made an order. " That no possessors or landlords
should allow of any thing, that was brought in their accounts
by their managers or tenants, as given to an idol, under the
penalty of five years suspension from the communion."
And in another canon,3 they order f All masters to prohibit
their servants, from retaining any idols in their houses, as
far as lay in their power ; or if they could not do this in
times of persecution for fear their servants should use some
violence toward them, that is, inform against them or be
tray them, they should at least keep themselves pure, or
otherwise be cast out of the Church." In times of peace
they were to carry their power a little further : for by a
rule of the second Council of Aries,3 after laws were made
by the state to prohibit and root out idolatry, eveTy pres
byter within his own territory or district, was to prosecute
all infidels, that still continued to light torches to idols, or
worship trees, or fountains, ot stones, under the penalty
of being himself reputed guilty of sacrilege, if he neglec
ted so to do. And every lord or governor of the place,
who upon admonition should refuse to correct such errors in
those under his command, was to be deprived of the com
munion. By another canon of the Council of Eliberis,* all
persons, both men and women, are prohibited - to lend any
heathen their clothes and apparel to set off the secular pomp
under the penalty of three years suspension from the com
munion. Where by the secular pomp it is most reasonable
to understand the idolatrous ceremonies of the heathen on

1 Con. Eliber. can. xl. Prohiberi placuit, ut cilm rationes suas accipiunt
possessores, quicquid ad idolum datum fuerit, acceptum non referant; si
post interdictum feeerint, per quinquennii spacia temporum a communione
esse arcendos. B Ibid can. xii. Admoneri placuit fideles,
ut in quantam possint, prohibeant, ne idola in domibus suis habeant. Si
verd vim metuunt servorum, vel seipsos puros conservent; si non feeerint,
alieni ab ecclesia habeantur. 8 Con. Arelat. ii. can.
23. Si in alicujus- presbyteri territorio infideies aut faculas accenderint, aut
arbores, fontes vel saxa venerentur: si hrec eruere neglexerit, sacrilegii se
esse reum cogneseat. Dominus autem vel ordinator rei ipsius, si admonitus
emendare noluerit, communione privetur. 4 Con. Eliber.
can. 67. M.itrona: vel eorum mariti vestimenta sua ad ornandam secularises
pompam non dent. Et si feeerint, triennii tempore abstineant.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 211
their public festivals. But there is one case peculiarly
guarded against in that Council, because many well-meaning
Christians, in a mistaken zeal against idolatry, were apt to
run in a contrary extreme, and think themselves obliged
to break and deface idols wherever they found them : to
.correct which error the Council1 was forced to make another
decree to forbid this unwarrantable practice, and to order,
that if any one was slain in such a "fact, he should not be
enrolled in the catalogue of martyrs : because the Gospel
gives no such command, neither do we find it ever practiced
by the Apostles. This observation of the Council concern
ing the practice of the Apostles, seems to be very just. For
whatever zeal they had against idolatry, we never read, that
they went in a tumultuous way into the heathen temples to
demolish their idols ; but rather the contrary character is given
them by the testimony of the very heathen. Of which we
have an illustrious instance in the apology, which the town-
clerk of Ephesus made for Paul and his companions, when
they were accused dy Demetrius and the crafts-men, who
made silver shrines for Diana, as if they had done violence to
her temple, and to the image, which fell down from Jupiter:
" Ye have brought hither these men," says he, " which are
neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your
goddess," Acts xix. 37.
It is true indeed, Eulalia the martyr had done some such
thing not long before in Spain : but the Council would not
have her action, which might be done by a peculiar impulse
of the spirit, drawn into example ; because it was an un
necessary provocation of the heathen, and prejudicial to
tho Church, without any warrant from Scripture ; which bids
men confess Christ when they are called to do* it, but not to
provoke the enemy by an imprudent zeal, when there is no
just reason for it. And this is what Cyprian before them
had always taught his people, both by his preaching and his

I in:

1 Ibid. can. 60. Si quis idola fregerit, et Ibidem, fuerit occisus : quoniam
in Evangelio non est scriptum, neque invenitur ab Apostolis unquam factu -
placuit in mimerum eum non recipi martyrum.
v p 2

212 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
writing,1 " That they should raise no tumults, nor offer
themselves of their own accord to the Gentiles ; but when
they were apprehended and delivered up to the magistrate,
then to speak what the Lord put into their hearts in that
hour, who would have us to confess him when called to do
it, but not rashly put ourselves upon it." Thus the Ancients
in this matter of idolatry, the great crime of that age,
steered their discipline with an even course, keeping a just
medium between two extremes ; neither allowing any sinful
compliance or communication with it, nor encouraging any
indiscreet and over-zealous opposition to it. And if Tertul
lian in the former case has stretched the matter a little too
far ; as when he determines it to be a species and smatch
of idolatry, for a schoolmaster to teach the names of the
Heathen Gods to his scholars, or for a Christian to bear
arms, or fly in time of persecution ; it is easy to account for
these singularities, knowing out of what school they came,
and that they were not the dictates of the spirit of Christ,
but the spirit of Montanus : and it is a sufficient answer to
any such pretences, that we meet with no such dogmatical
assertions in purer writers, nor any such rules in ecclesias
tical discipline, nor any such overbearing custom in the
Church of God. I have been the more curious in stating
the sense of the Ancients upon these several questions, both
because they are useful to explain the discipline of the
Church, and also because they may have their use when ap
plied to other cases : and it is not very common to find
the subject of idolatry treated of in this way by modern
authors.

1 Cypr. Ep. lxxxi. al. lxxxiii. p. 239. Secundum quod me tractante saepis-
sime didicistis, quietem • et tranquillitatem tenete: ne quisquam vestrflm
aliquem tumultum de fratribus moveat, aut ultro se Gentilibus offerat, &c.
Si quidem dominus nos confiteri magis voluit, quam (temere) profiteri.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 213

CHAP. V.
Of the Practice of curious and forbidden Arts, Divination,
Magic, and Inchantment : and of the Laws of the Church
made for the Punishment of them.
Sect. 1.— Of the several Sorts of Divination, particularly of Astrology.
Another great crime against religion was the practice of
curious and forbidden arts, which are almost innumerable,
from the great and various inclination of men to superstition.
I shall sum them up under three general names, divination,
magic, and inchantment. Divination comprehends all the
arts and ways of discovering secrets, or foretelling future
events, not knowable by any rules of nature ; magic all the
arts of mischievous operations by secret and unknown
means, which is commonly called sorcery, and by the
Latins, Veneficium and Maleficium, from poisoning and
doing mischief; inchantment chiefly relates to a pretended
skill and power of doing good, as of curing diseases by
certain charms, and words, and signs, and amulets, which
has made it the more agreeable to weak and superstitious
persons, because it has a pretence and shew of being
useful and beneficial to mankind. Among the several
species of divination, one of the most noted and infamous
was that of astrology, or the pretence of discovering
secrets by the position and motion of the stars. Men, who
professed this art, are commonly called Mathematici,
drawers of schemes and calculations ; under which name
they are condemned in both the Codes.1 And they were
infamous not only under the Christian administration, but
also under the old Romans. For there is a law of Diocle-

1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 16. De Maleficis et Matheraaticis.

214 THE antiquities of the [book xvi.
tian1 in the Justinian Code, which allows the art of geome
try as an useful science, but forbids the Ars Mathematica,
the astrologer's art, as a damnable practice. And Tacitus2
says, " There were decrees of the senate made in the reign
of Tiberius for expelling all the astrologers and magicians, t t
out of Italy :" but he likewise observes,3 " That they were
a sort of men, which were always forbidden, and yet always
retained. For though they were deceitful and fallacious to
great men, yet they still had an inclination now and then
upon occasion to consult them." Their expulsion out of Italy
is also noted by Suetonius, as done twice,4 in the reigns
of Tiberius and Vitellius. Upon which Tertullian5 in a
smart and elegant way, tolls some Christians, who pleaded
for a toleration of themselves in the profession of this wicked
art, " That astrologers were expelled out of Italy and Rome
as their angels were out of heaven: the same penalty of
banishment was inflicted on the scholars, as had been on their
masters before them. Now then the laws of the state, both hea
then and Christian, being thus severe against them, it was
but reasonable, that the censures of the Church should be
as sharp upon them, because they were a species of idola
ters, and owed the original of their art to the invention
of wicked angels." For this reason the Constitutions6 put
astrologers into the black list of such as were to be rejec
ted from baptism, unless they would promise to renounce
their profession. The first Council of Toledo,7 condemns
the Priscillianists with Anathema for the practice of it. For

1 Cod. Justin, lib. ix. tit. xviii. De Malefic, ct Mathemat. leg. ii. Artem
geometriae discere atque exercere publice interest. Ars autem mathematica
damntfbilis est atque interdicta omnino.
E Tacit. Annal. lib. ii. cap. 32. Facta et de mathematicis magisque Italia
pellendis senatfls consulta; quorum e numero Pituanius saxo dejectus est.
8 Idem in Hist. lib. i. cap. 22. Mathematici, genus hominum potentibus
infidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in civitate nostra et vetabitur semper, et
retinebitur. * Sueton. Vit. Tiber, cap. xxxvi. Vit.
Vitel. cap. xiv. * Tertul. de Idol. cap. ix. Urbs
et Italia interdicitur mathematicis, sicut caelum et angelis eorum, eadem
poena est exilii discipulis et magistris.
6 Constit. lib. viii. cap. 32. j Con. Tolet. i. In Regula
Fidei Cont. Priscillianistas. .Si quis astrologies vel mathesi existimat esse
credondum anathema sit.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 215
wo must know, that the Priscillianists ascribed all to fate
and the necessary influehce of the stars, as St. Austin
informs us :l " They asserted, that men were bound to fatal
stars, and that our bodies were compounded according to
the order of the twelve signs of the Zodiac, as they, who
are commonly called Mathematici, or astrologers, maintain,
appointing Aries for the head, Taurus for the neck, Gemini
for the shoulders, Cancer for the breast, and so running
through the other signs,' till they came to the feet, which
they attributed to Pisces, which is the last sign in the astro
logers' computation.'' Leo8 in one of his Epistles gives the
same account of them, " That they maintained, that the
bodies and souls of men were bound to.-fatal stars, by
which folly men were embarrassed in the errors of the pa
gans, and obliged to worship those stars, that were fa
vourable to them and appease those, that were against them :
but they, who followed such vanities, could have no
place in the Catholic Church : for he, that gives himself to
such persuasions, is wholly departed from the body of
Christ." Sozomen3 says, Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, was
accused of the practice of this art, and forced to fly from
his bishopric upon it. He gives it indeed another name,
calling it " apotelesroatical astronomy :" but that* signifies
the same thing : for there were two parts of astronomy, the
one teaching the nature and course of the stars ; which
was a lawful art : and the other, the secret effects, and
powers of them in their oppositions, conjunctions, &c.
which effects were called their Apotelesmata, and the art
1 Aug. de Haeres. cap. 70. Astruunt fatalibus atellis homines colligates,
Ipsumque corpus nostrum secundum duodecim signa cceli esse compositum,
sicut hi qui vulgd mathematici appellantur ; constitucntes in capite arietem,
taurum in cervice, geminos in humeris, cancrum in pectore ; et cetera nomi-
natim signa percurrentes, ad plantas usque perveniunt, quas piscibus tri-
buunt, quod ultiihum signum ab astrologisnuncupatur.
e Leo. Ep. xci. al. xciii. ad Turibium. cap. xi. Fatalibus stellis et
aniinas hominum, et corpora opinantur astringi : per quam amentiam necesse
est ut homines paganorum erroribus implicati, et faventia sibi (ut putant)
sideracolere, et adversantia studeant initigare. Verum ista sectantibus nullus
in Ecclesia CatholicS locus est: quoniam quise talibus persuasionibus
dedit, a. Christi corporetotus nbscessit. 3 Sozom. lib. iii.
cap. 0. - * Justin. Respons. ad Orthodox. 21.
Speaks of the Telcsmata of Apollonius.

216 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
itself Apotelesmatica, and the practicers of it anciently
Apotfilesmatici, as afterwards Mathematici and Chaldmi.
Some think1 also, these Apotelesmata were,little figures and
images of wax, made by magical art to receive the influence
of the stars, and used as helps in divination. So that the
apotelesmatical art was the same in all respects with judi
cial astrology. And therefore Eusebius Emissenus was
condemned for the practice of it, as an unlawful art, utterly
unbecoming the character of a Christian bishop. For by
the account, that has been given, it is plain, that all such
kind of divination was looked upon as idolatry and paga
nism, as owing its original to wicked spirits, and as intro
ducing an absolute fate and necessity upon human actions,
and so taking away all freedom from human will, and mak
ing God the author of sin : which blasphemies are common
ly charged upon this art by the Ancients, St. Austin,2 Lac-
tantius,3 Tertullian,* Eusebius,5 Origen and Bardesanes
Syrus, who wrote particulur dissertations against it, men
tioned by Eusebius, who gives some extracts out of them.
We may note further out of St. Austin, that these astrolo
gers had sometimes the name of Genethliaci6 from preten
ding to calculate men's nativities by erecting schemes and
horoscopes, as they called them, to know what position the
stars were in at their birth, and thence prognosticate their
good or bad fortune, or any accidents of their life, by the
conjunction of the stars, they were born under. And be
cause some of these pretended to determine positively of
the lives and deaths of kings, which was reputed a very
dangerous piece of treason ; therefore the laws of the
state were more severe against them, even under the Hea-

1 Vid. Selden. De Diis Syriis Syntagma, i. cap. ii. p. 1 10. Spencer. De
Urim. etThummim. lib. iii. cap. iii. sect. 10. p. 369. »
3 Aug. De Civ. Dei. lib. v. cap. i. &c. De Doctrina Christ, lib. ii. cap. xxi.
&c. s Lact. lib. ii. c. 17. * Tertul
De Idol. cap. ix. » Euseb. De Pra:par. Evang. lib. vi.
Orig. et Bardesan. ibid. cap. x. et xi. Vid. Nyssen. de Fato. Basil. Horn.
i. and vi. in Hexamer. o Aug. de Doct. Christ. lib.
ii. cap. 21. Genethliaci propter natalium diurum considerationes vocantur.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 21T
then Emperors, as Gothofred shews out of the ancient
lawyers,1 Ulpian and Paulus : and that was another reason
why the Church thought it proper to animadvert upon these
with the utmost severity of ecclesiastical censures; as
thinking, that what the heathen laws had punished as a ca
pital crime, ought not to pass unregarded in the discipline
of the Christian Church. It was this crime, that expelled
Aquila from the Church. For Epiphanius says2 he was
once a Christian ; but being incorrigibly bent upon the prac
tice of astrology, the Church cast him out : and then he
became a Jew, and in revenge set upon a new translation
of the Bible, to corrupt those texts, which had any relation
to the coming of Christ. St. Austin3 gives a famous instance
of an astrologer, who being excommunicated for his crimes
afterwards became a penitent, and was reconciled to the
Church by his ministerial absolution. The sum of his
crimes was this : he taught the fatal influence of the stars,
that it was Venus, that made a man commit adultery, and
not his own will ; and that it was Mars, and not his own
will, that made him commit murder : and that if any man
was righteous, it was not from God, but from the influence
of Jupiter, a star so called in the heavens. And by this art
he had defrauded many people of their money ; but at last
he became a convert, and upon his confession and repen
tance, was received into the Church again, to lay-commu
nion, but for ever denied all promotion among the clergy.
By which one instance, we may judge of the greatness of
the crime, and the proceedings of the Church against such
offenders. Sect. 2 — Of Augury and Soothsaying.
Another sort of divination was, that, which was
called augury and soothsaying. Which was committed
several ways. Sometimes by observing several signs
and appearances in the entrails of the sacrifices,

1 Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. ix. Tit. xvi. De Malef, et Mathematic.
jcg_ ;-u s Epiphan. de Mensur. et Ponder.
3 Aug. De Mathematics, ad Calcem. Tractatus in Psal. lxi.

218 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
which was properly called A ruspicina and Haruspicium.
Sometimes by observations made upon the motion, or flying
or singing of birds, which was called augury, in the strict
est sense. Sometimes by remarks made upon the voice
of men, or their sneezing, which was called an omen, and
the thing reputed ominous. Sometimes by observing certain
signs in the figure and lineaments of the body; as in the
hands, which was called chiromacy ; or in the face and fore
head, which was called; M£rw7roo-ico7ria, orPhysiognomy ; or in
the back, called, Nojro/tavr«a, with many other observations
of the like nature. The old Romans were much given to
these superstitions, insomuch that they had their colleges
of augurs, and would neither fight, nor make war or peace,
or do any thing of moment without consulting them. The
squeaking of a rat, was sometimes the occasion of dissol
ving a senate, or making a consul or a dictator1 lay down
his office, as begun with an ill omen. Now, though Chris
tianity was a professed enemy to all such vanities ; yet the
remains of such superstition continued in the hearts of
many after their conversion. So that the Church was for
ced to make severe laws to restrain them. The Council of
Eliberis3 makes the renunciation of this art a condition of
baptism, if an augur had a mind to be baptised: and if after
ward he returned to the practice of it, he was to be cast out of
the Church. Which is also the rule in the Apostolical Con
stitutions,3 and the Councils of Agde,* Vannes,60rleance,6and
several others. The constitutions notonly censure astrologers,
magicians, and inchanters, but also wandering fortune-tellers,
augurs and soothsayers, observers of signs and omens, in
terpreters of palpitations, observers of accidents in meeting
others, and making divination upon them, as upon a

1 Valer. Maxim, lib. i. cap. iii. Occentus soricis auditus Fabio Maximo
Dictaturam, Caio Flaminio magisterium equitum deponendi causam
prffibuit. s Con. Eliber. can. 62. Si Augur aut pantomirai
credere voluerint, placuit, ut prius artibus suis renuncient, et tune demum
suscipiantur, ita ut ulterius non revertantur. Quod si facere contra interdic
tum tentaverint, projiciantur ab ecclesia.
* Constit. lib. viii. cap. 32. i Con. Agathen. can. xlii.
s Con. Vcnetic. can. xvi. 6 Con. Aurel. i. can. 32.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 210
blemish in tho oye, ov in the foot, observers of the motion
of birds or weasels, observers of voices, and symbolical
sounds. Sect. 8. — Of Divination by Lots.
And it is observable, that in the French Councils last men
tioned, there is a peculiar sort of augury condemned under
the name of Sortes Sacree, divination by holy lots. Which
was a piece of new superstition grafted upon an old stock
and introduced with a more specious shew in the room of
an heathen practice. For the heathens were used to divine
by a sort of lots, which they called Sortes Virgiliance :
which was done by a casual opening of the Book of Virgil
and then the first verses, that appeared, were taken and in
terpreted into an oracle. Thus Spartian says,1 Hadrian had
the empire prognosticated to him by drawing his lots out of
Virgil. For the first words that appeared, " Missus in
imperium magnum" portended that he should become the
Roman Emperor. And so Lampridius,2in the Life of Alexander
Severus, says, that Emperor also understood by this sort of
divining-lots out of another verse of Virgil, that he should
obtain the government of the Roman Empire. Now many
superstitious Christians were of opinion, that this sort of
divination might be much better made by using the Holv
Scriptures after the same manner, and to the same purpose :
and therefore as the Heathen used Virgil, so they used the
Bible, to learn their fortune by sacred lots, as they called
them, taking the first passage, that presented itself, to make
their divination and conjecture upon: and it appears, that
some of the inferior clergy, out of a base spirit, and love
of filthy lucre, encouraged this practice, and made a trade
of it in the French Church. Whence the Gallican C6un-
cils are very frequent in the condemnation of it. The

1 Spartian. Vit. Hadrian, p. 5. Cum Virgilianas sortes consuleret, &c.
2 Iiamprid. Vit. Alexand. p. 341. Virgilii sortibus hujusmodi illustratus
est, tu regere imperio populus, Romane, memento, &c.

220

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Council of Agde1 takes notice, " That some of the clergy
and laity followed after soothsaying, to the great detriment
of the Catholic religion ; and under, the name of feigned
religion, professed tho art of divination, by what they
called the lots of the saints, making use of a casual inspec
tion of the Scriptures to divine futurities by. It is decreed
therefore, " That whoever of the clergy or laity should
be detected in the practice of this art, either as consulting
or teaching it, should be cast out of the communion of the
Church." This had been decreed about sixty years before
in the Council of Vannes, Anno 465, in the very same words.
And the first Council of Orleance2 about five years after the
Council of Agde, repeats the decree with a very little vari
ation. But the practice continued for all this : for Gregory
of Tours3 says, Kramnus, the son of King Clotharius, consul
ted the clergy of Dijon upon some points, and they gave
him an answer by this sort of divination. Some reckon St.
Austin's conversion owing to such a sort of consultation :
but the thought is a great mistake, and very injurious to him,
for his conversion was owing to a providential call, like that
of St. Paul from heaven. He says,* he heard a voice he
knew not whence, saying, " Tolle lege, tolle lege, take up
the Bible and read :" which he did, and the first words he
chanced to cast his eye upon were those of St. Paul, Rom.
xiii. " Let us walk honestly as in the day ; not in rioting
and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in
strife and envying : but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and make not provisions for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof."
Which words, being apposite to his case, he looked upon

1 Con. Agathen. can. xlii. Quod maxime fidem catholicae religionis in-
festat, aliquanti clerici sive laici student auguriis, et sub nomine fictai reli
gionis, per eas quas sanctorum sortes vocant, divinationis scientiam profi-
tentur, aut quarumcunque scrjpturarum inspectione futura promittunt. Hoc
quicunque clericus vel laicus detectus fuerit vel consulere vel docere, ab ec
clesia habeatur extraneus. 2 Con. Veneticum. can. xvi. Con.
Aurel. i. can. 32. Si quis clericus, monachus, vel secularis divinationera
vel auguria crediderit observanda, vel sortes (quas inentiuntnr esse sancto
rum) quibuscunque putaverint intimandas, cum his, qui eis crediderint, ab
ecclesiae cominuhione pellantur. s Greg. Turon. Hist.
lib. iv. cap. 16. * Aug. Confess, lib. viii. cap. 12.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 221
them as spoken directly to himself, and accordingly applied
them to his own condition : and so by God's providence,
they became the means of fixing him in that piety, purity,
and sobriety, for which he was afterwards so famous in the
world. Here was nothing of divination in all this; but a
seasonable application of a proper passage to himself, as
he says St. Anthony had made of those words of our Saviour,
'' go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and
thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come follow
me." Which he took as an oracle spoken immediately to
himself, and they were the occasion of his turning to the
Lord. As to any other use of the Scripture for divination,
St. Austin was an enemy to it, and expresses himself against
it, reflecting on some, who used it to that purpose : " As
for those" says he,1 " who divine by lots out of the Gos
pel, though it be more desirable they should do this, than
run to ask counsel of devils ; yet I am displeased at this
custom, which turns the divine oracles, which speak of
things belonging to another life, to the business of this
world and the vanities of the present life." By which it is
plain, he looked upon this sort of divination as a great
abuse of the Gospel, though not so bad as going directly to
consult devils. As for those, which are commonly called
divisory lots, there is no harm in them, when applied to
things in our own power ; as to dividing of lands by lot,
or determining in an army, who shall first invade the enemy ;
or in time of a plague or persecution, what ministers shall
stay in a city to take care of the Church ; which is a case
particularly mentioned by St. Austin,2 and allowed as lawful.
So a prince may distribute his punishments by lot, when
he is minded to spare some criminals, and punish others.
And when there are two objects of charity in equal circum-

1 Aug, Ep. 119. ad Januar. cap. 20. Hi verd qui de paginis evangelicis
sortes leguntj etsi optandum est, ut hoc potius faciant, quam ut ad daemonia
consulenda concurrent, tamen etiam ista mihi displicet consuetudo, ad nego-
tia saecularia et ad vita? hujus vanitatem, propter aliam vitam eloquentia
oracula divina velle convertere. , * Aug. Ep. 180. ad Honors I .
Quas disceptatio, si aliter non potuerint terminari, quantum mihi videtur,
qui maneant et qui fugiant, sorte legendi sunt.

222 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE (BOOK XVI.
stances, and we cannot relieve both, St. Austin1 thinks there
is no harm in casting lots to determine which of them shall
have our charity. And there are many other indifferent
cases of the like nature, in which lots may be used without
any prejudice to religion. And therefore the Church never
made any laws to foi bid or censure them, save only in dis
posing of ecclesiastical offices, and the lives of men, which
are too sacred to be committed to mere chance or lots with
out some special divine direction, as in the case of Matthias,
and Jonas, which St. Jerom says,2 " are not to be drawn
into example ; because special privileges cannot make a
common or general law for all eases : and it is plain, that
without such special direction, lots of that kind will be
matter of mere chance, or else pure divination.
- Sect. 4. — Of Divination by express Compact with Satan.
There were some other ways of divination, far more abo
minable than the former, because they were done by ex
press compact with the devil, and always implied his con
currence and assistance. Sometimes he gave answers by
his images and idols, which were called oracles. Some-
. times by speaking in his prophets, whom he possessed, who
were called Pythonici and Pythonissce, possessed with a fa
miliar, or spirit of divination, and 'Eyyasrptjtnfoot, because they
spake out of the belly by the navel. Sometimes men used
certain ceremonies in sleeping, in such a posture, in a
temple, in the skins of the sacrifices, &c. to receive his im
pressions and answers by dreams, which was called 'Ovstpo-
navrda. Sometimes he gave answers by spectres and ap
pearances from the dead, as he did to Saul by the witch of
Endor. This they properly called necromancy, that is,
divination by the dead. Sometimes he spake by the skull
of a dead man, called Kpaviofiavrsia. Sometimes he gave
answers by certain signs and figures made in the earth, or
water, or air, or fire, or a glass, or a riddle, and a thousand
1 Aag. de Doct. Christ, lib. i. c. 18.
2 Hieron. in Jon. i. Nee statim dehemus sub hoc exemplo sortibus credere,
vel illud de actibus. Apostolorum huictestimoniacopulare, ubi sorte in Apos-
tolatum Matthias eligitur: Cum privilegia singulorum non possint facere
legem communem.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 223
other ways of imposture, either by real appearances, or by
deluding the imagination. The names of which and the
transactions may be seen in Delrio,1 orLessius,2 or Du Mou
lin,3 who treat more particularly of them. That which is
to our present purpose, is only to observe, that, as this
crime had in it a mixture of idolatry, heresy, infidelity,
apostacy, sacrilege, hypocrisy, curiosity, and ambition ;
each one of which was an high crime in itself ; so tho
Church was always careful to lay the heaviest censure of
excommunication upon it. The general name, under which
all the species of it are condemned, is Mavrria, prophecy-
ing or divining, by Satan's inspiration. In the Constitu
tions* among those, that are to be denied baptism, the
Mdvrai, oracle-mongers, are particularly specified. And in
the Council of Ancyra,5 those, that follow after such divi
ners — 'Ot Karafiavrtvoutvoi — or take them into their houses
to exercise their wicked arts, are to be excluded from com
munion, and do five years penance. By a law of Constan-
tius in the Theodosian Code6 the Vates and Harioli, are
reckoned among others, who practice forbidden arts, such
as soothsayers, astrologers, augurs, Chaldeans, magicians,
and both they, that use such curious divinations, and they,,
that consult them, are condemned to die, as guilty of a capi
tal crime and offence against religion. Gothofred7 observes,
that this law is often mentioned with some regret by the hea
then writers, Ammianus Marcellinus, Mamertinus, and Lib.a-
nius, who give some instances of Constantius's severity in put
ting it in execution. Constantine, by a former law or two,9
had indulged the heathen in the liberty of consulting their
augurs, provided they did it in public, and never put any

1 Delrio. Disquisit. Magicae. 3 Lessius de Jure et Jnstit. lib. ii.
cap. xliii. dubit. 5. 3 Molinaei Vates. lib. iii. cap. 6, &c. 4 Con-
stit. lib. viii. cap. 32. 6 Con. Ancyr. can. xxv. Vid. Basil, can. lxxii.
' Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 16. de Malefic, et Mathematicis. leg. iv. Nemo
aruspicem consulat aut mathematicuin, nemo hariolum. Augurum et vatum
prava confessio conticescatj Chaldaei ac Magi, et ceteri, quos maleficos ob
facinorum magnitudinem vulgus appellat, nee ad banc partem aliqui molian-
tur. Sileat omnibus perpetud divinandi curiositas. Etenim supplicium
capitis feret gladio ultore prostratus, quicunque jussis obsequium denegu-
verit. ' Gothofred. in Loc. 8 Cod. Theod. ibid. leg. i. et ii.

224 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
questions concerning the state of the commonwealth or the
life of the prince ; which is noted also by Julius Firmieus
Maternas, in his'Books of Astrology,1 written whilst he was
an heathen : but Constantius, finding great abuses made of
this permission, universally prohibited all such consultations
under the forementioned penalty of death : which extended
not only to magicians, but to the Harioli and the Vates ;
the former of which waited on the altars, to receive their in
spiration from the fumes of the sacrifices, as Tertullian2
describes them ; and the latter, the Vates, were those, who
pretended to prophesy by the perpetual motion of an in
dwelling daemon ; whom therefore the Latins called Fana
tici, arid the Greeks, 'Ev(Wiaorai and 8£oXi]7rrot, and Qwijio-
ps/ntvoi, &c. as may be seen in Theodoret,3 and Suidas,*
and many others. Now, because no Christian could prac
tice this art, nor consult those, that did, without direct com
municating with devils, therefore the civil law made it a
capital crime, and the ecclesiastical law punished it with the
severest censure of excommunication.
Sect. 5. — Of Magical Inchantment and Sorcery.
Next to the superstition of divination was that of magic
and sorcery ; which, because it commonly tended to work
mischief, therefore they, who gave themselves to it, were
usually termed Venefici and Malefici, because either by
poison or other means of fascination they wrought perni
cious effects upon others. The Laws of the Theodosian
Code5 frequently brand them with this name of Malefici*
Particularly they are charged by Constantine,6 as making

1 Finnic, de Mathesi sive Astronom. lib. ii. in fine.
3 Tertul. Apol, cap. xxiii. Qui aris inhalentes numena de nidore concipiunt.
Theod. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 10. "EvSmaia^ai KaXZvrat taipovbg woe Ivif
ydav iKfexo/Kvoi. &c. ? Suidas. Voce, 'Ej#4c, Harmenopulus.
de Sectis. n. 18. de Massalianis. « Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 16.
de Maleficus. leg. vi. Magus, qui maleficus vulgi consuetudine nuncupatur.
It. leg. ix, x, xi. ibid, et tit. xxxviii. de Indulgentiis Criminum leg i iii
iv. vi. vii. viii. 6 Cod. Theod- lib ix tU_ xvi leg ..L E(;rum
est scientia punienda, et severissimis merito legibus vindicanda, qui magicis
adcincti artibus, aut contra hominum moliti salutcm, aut pudicos ad libidi-
nem defixisse animos detegentur.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 225
attempts by their wicked arts upon the lives of innocent
men, and drawing others, by magical potions, called Philtra
and Pharmaca, to commit uncleanness. All such, when
they are detected, are appointed to be put to death. Con-
stantius1 charges them further with disturbing the elements,
or raising of tempests, and practising abominable, arts in
the evocation of the infernal spirits to assist men in destroy
ing their enemies : whom he therefore orders to be exe
cuted, as unnatural monsters, and quite divested of the prin
ciples of humanity. And it is observable, that in all those
laws of the Christian Emperors, which granted indulgence
to criminals at the Easter festival,8 the Venefici and the
Malefici, that is, magical practisers against the lives of
men, are always excepted, as guilty of too heinous a
crime to be comprised within the general pardon granted to
other offenders. And according to these measures the laws
of the Church were strict and severe against all such, under
whatever character or denomination they were found
guilty. The Council of Laodicea3 condemns them under
the name of magicians and enchanters, together with those
called Mathematici and astrologers, ordering all such to be
cast out of the Church. The Council of Ancyra,* forbids
the art under the name of «Papjuaiciia, pharmacy , that is, the
magical art of inventing and preparing medicaments to do
mischief: and five years penance is there appointed for
any one, that receives a magician into his house for that
purpose. St. Basil's Canons6 condemn it under the same
character of pharmacy or witchcraft, and lays thirty years
penance upon it. And the fourth Council of Carthage
censures it, under the name of enchantment,6 joining it with

1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xvi. leg. iii. Multi magicis artibus ausi elementa
turbare, vitas insontium labefactare non dubitant, et Manibus accitis au-
dent ventilare, ut quisque suos conficiat malis artibus inimicos : hos, quo
niam haturae peregrini sunt, feralis pestis absumat.
8 Vid. Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xxxviii. de Indulgentiis Criminum. lib. i.
iii, iv, vi. vii, viii. 8 Con. Laodic. can. xxxvi. 0i> StX Uparuckg
r\ KXrjpw&g, fiayug r\ iiraoiisg ilvai r\ juadqjuartK&c § arpoXoyag, &c.
* Con. Ancyr. can. xxv. 6 Basil, can. vii. et lxv.
0 Con. Carth. iv. can. 89. Auguriis vel incantationibus servientem, ii con.
ventu ecclesiae separandum.
VOL. VI. Q

226 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
augury, and denying communion to all such as follow after
either, not to mention what private writers, Origen,1 Ter
tullian,? Hermes Pastor,8 and many others have said against
it : Tertullian particularly observing, that there never was
a magician or enchanter allowed to escape unpunished in
the Church.

Sect. 6.— Of Amulets, Charms, and Spells to cure Diseases.
But there was one sort of enchantment, which many ig
norant aud superstitious Christians, out of the remains of
heathen error, much affected : that was the use of charms
and amulets, and spells to cure diseases, or avert dangers
and mischiefs, both from themselves and the fruits of the
earth. For Constantine had allowed the heathen, in the
beginning of his reformation, for some time not only to con
sult their augurs in public, but also to use charms by way
of remedy* for bodily distempers, and to prevent storms of
rain and hail from injuring the ripe fruits, as appears from
that very law, where he condemns the other sort of magic,
that tended to do mischief, to be punished with death. And
probably from this indulgence granted to the heathen,
many Christians, who brought a tincture of heathenism
with them into their religion, might take occasion to think
there was no great harm in such charms or enchantments,
when the design was only to do good and not evil. How
ever it was, this is certain in fact, that many Christians were
much inclined to this practice, and therefore made use of
charms and amulets, which they called Periammata and
Phylacteria, pendants and preservatives, to secure thenar

1 Orig. cont. Cels. lib. vii. p. 878. * Tertul. de Idol. cap. ix.
Post evangelium nusquam invenies aut sophistas, aut chaldaeos, aut incanta-
tores, aut conj ectores, autmagos, nisi plane punitos.
3 Hermes Past. lib. i. vision, iii. u. 6. Malefici quidem venena sua in
pyxidibus bajulant. * Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. de Malefic.
leg. iii. Nullis vero criminationibus implicanda sunt remedia humanis
quaesita corporibus, aut in agrestibus locis, ne maturis vindemiis metueren-
tur imbres, aut mentis grandinis lapidatione quaterentur, adhibita innocen-
ter suffragia, quibus non cujusque salus aut exislimatio lrederetur, sed quo
rum proficerent actus, ne divina munera, et labores hominum stei nerentur.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 227
selves from danger, and drive away bodily distempers.
These phylacteries, as they called them, were a sort of amu
lets made of ribbands, with a text of Scripture or some other
charm of words written in them, whichthey imagined, with
out any natural means, to be effectual remedies or preserva
tives against diseases. Therefore the Church, to root
this superstition out of men's minds, was forced to make
severe laws against it. The Council of Laodicea,1 con
demns clergymen that pretended to make such phylacteries,
which were rather to be called bonds and fetters for their
own souls, and orders all such as wore them to be cast out
of the Church. St. Chrysostom often mentions them with
some indignation : upon those words of the Psalmist, " I
will rejoice in thy salvation,"2 he says, " We ought not
simply to desire to be saved, and delivered from evil by
any means whatever, but only by God. And this I say
upon the account of those, who use enchantments in dis
eases, and seek to relieve their infirmities by other impos
tures. For this is not salvation, but destruction." In ano
ther place, dissuading Christians from running to the Jews,
who pretended to cure diseases by such methods, he tells'
them, " That Christians are to obey Christ, and not to fly to
his enemies ; though they pretend to make cures, and pro
mise you a remedy to invite you to them, choose rather to
discover their impostures,3 their enchantments, their amu
lets, their witchcraft: for they pretend to work cures no
other way ; neither indeed do they work them truly at all,
God forbid. But I will say one thing further, although they
did work true cures, it were better to die, than to go to the
enemies of Christ, and be cured after that manner. For
what profit is it, to have the body cured with the loss of
our soiin what advantage, what comfort shall we get
thereby, when we must shortly be sent into everlasting
fire V He there proposes the example of Job, and Lazarus,
and the infirm man, who had waited at the Pool of Bethesda,

1 Con. Laodic. can. xxxvi. s Chrys. in Psal. ix. 15. torn. iii. p. 137.
" Chtys. Horn, vi." cont. Judaeos, torn. i. p. 56. 'AvaxaXvipov avrSiv Tiie
jlUyyaviiag, Tag linatag, t& Tnpi&finaTa, rile fapjiaKtiag. &e.
Q2

228 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
thirty and eight years, who never betook themselves to any
diviner, or enchanter, or juggler, or impostor : they tied
no amulets nor plates to their bodies, but expected their
help only from the Lord : and Lazarus chose rather to die
in his sickness and sores, than betray his religion in any
wise, by having recourse to those forbidden arts for cure.
This he reckons a sort of martyrdom,1 when men chuse ra
ther to die, or suffer their children to die, than make use of
amulets and charms : for though they do not sacrifice their
bodies with their own hands, as Abraham did his son, yet
they offer a mental sacrifice to God. On the contrary, he
says, " the use of amulets was idolatry, though they, that
made a gain by it, offered a thousand philosophical argu
ments to defend it, saying we only pray to God, and do
nothing more ; and, the old woman, that made them was a
Christian and a believer, with other such like excuses. If
thou.art a believer, sign thyself with the sign of the cross:
say, this is my armour, this my medicament ; beside this I
know no other. Suppose a physician should come, and
instead of medicines belonging to his art should use en
chantment only: would you call him a physician] no, in
no wise : because we see not medicines proper to his call
ing : so neither are your medicines proper to the calling of
a Christian." He adds, " that some women put the names
of rivers into their charms ; and others ashes, and soot,
and salt, crying out, that the child was taken with an evil
eye, and a thousand ridiculous things of the like nature,
which exposed Christians to the scorn of the heathen, many
of whom were wiser than to hearken to any such fond im
postures." Upon the whole matter he tells them, "that
if he found any henceforward, that made amulets or charms,
or did any other thing belonging to this art, he would no
longer spare them ;" meaning, that they should ,feel the
severity of ecclesiastical censure for such offences. In
other places2 he complains of women, that made phylacte
ries of the Gospels to hang about their necks. And the

1 Chrys. Horn. viii. in Colos. p. 1374.. 'Exwj;<7£v,. £K kwoir><st: ntpiairra,
papTvpiov airy Xoyi&rai. . s Chrys. Horn, lxxiii. in Mat. p. 627.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 229
like complaints are made by St. Basil,1 and Epiphanius.2
Which shews, that this piece of superstition, of trying to cure
diseases without physic, was deeply rooted in the hearts of
many Christians.
The Church indeed often cured diseases without physic,
but then itwas in the same way, that she dispossessed devils,
and wrought many miracles for the good of the world, by
the power of Christ, and invocation of his name. " She did
nothing," as Irenseus says,3 " by invocation of angels, or
enchantment, or any other curiosity, but by directing her
prayers, pure and clean, and openly to the God, that made
all things ; and by invocating the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, she wrought miracles for the benefit of men, and not
for their seduction." This was the difference between here
tics and the Church : heretics commonly made use of en
chantment, as is noted particularly by Irenseus concerning the
Basilidians,*who had their images, which they used as amu
lets, having the name of Abraxas or Abracadabra, or as
Baronius thinks,5 the names of their three hundred and
sixty five heavens, answering to the like number' of mem
bers in human bodies, written upon them. And St. Austin
complains, that some of Satan's instruments, who profess
ed the exercise of these arts, were used to set the name of
Christ,6 before their ligatures and enchantments, and other
devices to seduce Christians, and induce them to take the
venomous bait under the covert of a sweet and honey-
potion, that the bitter might lie hid under the sweet, and
make men drink it without discerning, to their destruction.

1 Basil, in Psal. xlv. p. 229. 2 Epiphan. Haer. xv. de Pharisaeis.
3 Iren.lib. ii. cap. 57. Nee invocationibus angelicis facit, nee incantatio-
nibus, nee aliqua pravB, curiositate, sei munde et pure et manifeste ora
tiones dirigens ad Dominum, 'jqui omnia fecit ; et nomen Domini nostri Jesu
Christi invocans, virtutes secundum utilitates hominum, sed non ad seduc-
fionem perficit.
4 Iren. lib. i. cap. 23. Utuntur hi magia et ineantationibus et invocatio
nibus et reliquS universS periergia, &c.
6 Baron. An. cxx. n. 10. 6 Aug. Tract, vii. in Joan. torn. ix.
p. 27. Qui seducunt per ligaturas, per pr*cantatione.s, per inachinameiita
iBimici, miscent praecantationibus suis nomen Christi: quia jam non possunt
seducere Christianos, ut dent venenum, addunt mellis aliquantwn, ut per id
quod dulce est, lateat quod amarura est, et bibatur ad perniciem.

230 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
To such he gives this advice, to seek Christ only in the
way, which he has appointed. " When we are afflicted
with pains in our head, let us not run to enchanters, and
fortune-tellers, and remedies of vanity. I mourn for you,
my brethren: for I daily find these things done. And
what shall I do % I cannot yet persuade Christians to put
their trust only in Christ. With what face can such a soul
ga unto God, that has lost the sign of Christ, and taken
upon him the sign of the devil 1" In another place, he
bids them,1 " when they are sick, to receive the body, and
blood of Christ, and anoint themselves with that unction,
which may prove beneficial both to body and soul. For
when they may have a double advantage in the Church,
why should miserable men endeavour to bring upon themr
selves such multiplicity of evils by running to enchanters,
and fountains, and trees, and diabolical phylacteries, and
characters, and soothsayers, and diviners, and fortune tel
lers V He mentions many other superstitions of the like
nature, which were the remains of heathenism, such as the
sacrilegious custom used about the hind, their crying out
when the moon was eclipsed to defend themselves from
witchcraft, their keeping Thursday holiday in honour of
Jupiter ; concerning all which he concludes, that they, who
still continued to follow such vanities, ought to be reproved,
by their fellow Christians;2 and if after that, they did not
amend their ways, they should thenceforward banish them
from all society, both in eating and conversation. Some.
think this homily, rather belongs to Caesarius Arelatensis ;
and if so, it only shews, that this crime prevailed among
some in France, as it did for many ages after : which ap-

1 Aug. Serm. 215. de Tempore. Cum ergo duplicia bona possint in ecclesia
inveniri, quareper praecantatores, per fontes, et arbores, et diabolica phy-
lacteria, per characteres et aruspices et divinos sortilegos raultipUcia, sibi
mala miseri homines conantur inferre 1 Vid. lib. ii. de Doct. Christ, cap. xx,
in the last section of this chapter.
s Ibid. Quoscunque tales esse cognoveritis, durissime castigate. Et si
emendare noluerint, nee ad colloquium, nee ad convivium vestrum eos venire
permittite.

CHAP. V. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 231
pears from the Capitulars of Charles the Great,1 where de
crees were made against calculators, enchanters, and tem-
pestarians, as they are called, that is, raisers of storms, and
tempests, and obligators or makers of phylacteries to bind
about the neck. Who are also noted and condemned in
the Council of Rome,s under Gregory II. Anno 721, and in
the Council of Trullo,3 which forbids any one to consult
diviners, or those called Centenariij or any such, to dis
cover secrets, under the penalty of six years penance, ac
cording to the rules of the ancient Fathers. And the same
penalty is imposed upon those, who carry about she-bears,
Trpo'c iraiyviov, to the delusion and hurt of the people, and use
the words, fortune, and fate, and genealogy, and such like
names, to impose upon the simple. Also all observers of
the clouds, and jugglers, and makers of phylacteries,* and
diviners, persisting in their heathenish and pernicious prac
tices, are ordered to be east out of the Church. " For what
communion," says the Apostle, " hath light with darkness ?
and what agreement hath the temple of Gods with idols'?
and what part hath he, that believed with an infidel ? and
what concord hath Christ with Belial V It is plain from this,
there were still some remains of heathenish superstition and
idolatry among Christians, especially in the use of phylac
teries and divining, and other such vain observations. But
it is hard to guess, what are meant by centurions, who are
here joined with diviners, and forbidden to be consulted.
There is a law of Honorius5 in the Theodosian Code, which
Gothofred thinks may give a little light to this canon. For

1 Capitul. Aquisgran. lib. i. cap. lxiv. Con. torn. vii. p. 981. Calcula
tors, incantatores, tempestarii, vel obligatores non fiant: et ubicunque
sunt, vel emendentur vel damnentur.
s Con. Rom. can. xii. Si quis hariolos, aruspices, vel incantatores observa-
verit, aut phylacteriis usus fuerit, anathema sit. Vid. Capitul. Martin. Bra-
carensis. cap. lxxii. 8 Con. Trull, can. lxi. 'Ot n&vrtaiv iavrig
htitovTig, jj ToXg Xeyo/iivoig £/caroj/r<ipx«»SV &c- VTtb rbv xavova irmriTiiiaav
rijg HZaiTtag. * Ibid. Tic Tt Xiyo/ieveg VE$tXoti<i>KTag, yoriTEvrag,
k, <pvXaKTtipisg, fy /lavrug — Ttavrairaaiv airopiirrtoSiai rijg iKKXijaiag bpiZopcv.
* Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. x. de Paganis. leg. xx. Chiliarchas insuper et
centonarios, vel qui sibi plebis distributionem usurpare dicuntur, censuiinus
removendos.

232 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
there the Chiliarchce and Centonarii, Captains of thou
sands, and captains of hundreds, are plainly spoken of as
leaders of the people, and managers in ordering the idola
trous pomps of the Gentiles; being joined with the
Frediani and Dendrophori, which he shews to be those
officers in the pomp, who carried the images of the gods
on their shoulders in procession. They were the chief of
certain corporations or companies, who are mentioned in
another law of Honorius, under the names of Collegiati and
Vituriarii or Didumarii, the officers of Apollo Didumceus ;
and Nemesiaci, the officers of the goddess Nemesis, Good
Fortune, and the dispenser of fate ; and Signiferi and Can-
tabrarii, who carried the ensigns and banners of their gods
in their pomps and games, and festivals.1 And these, as
Gothofred shews, out of Commodianus,3 a Christian poet,
pretended to divine and tell fortunes, as inspired bv the
gods: and they incorporated others into these colleges, as
principal officers in these pomps; whence they were called
Chiliarchce and Hecatontarchce, captains of thousands, and
captains of hundreds. AU which agrees with 'the eanon of
the Council of Trullo, which joins the Hecatontarchce with
the Vates, or diviners, and makes them fortune tellers,
talking much of fortune and fate, and genealogies or nati
vities, to deceive the people. They who carried about she
bears or other animals, Balzamon says, were such impostors
as pretended, that the hairs of those bears, or toys tied to
them, were remedies against witchcraft. And so the Coun
cil forbids all these ways of making and using charms and
amulets, as the relics of heathen superstition, still remaining
among the weaker and baser sort of Christians. I have
been the more curious in searching into the true meaning
of this canon, because it is passed over in silence by most

1 Vid. Cod. Theod. lib. xiv. tit. 7. de Collegiatis. leg. ii. et Gothofred. in
toe. 2 Commodian. Instruct, ad Calcem Cypriani Edit. Rigaltii.
Mane ebrio, crudo, perituro, creditis viro,
Qui ex arte ficte loquitur, quod illi videtur.
Ipse sibi nescit divinare, ca;teris audet.
Vertitur a se rotans cum ligno bifurci,
Ac si putes ilium afllatum numine ligni.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 233
commentators, and the reader with me must own himself
beholden to the learned Gothofred for the explication of it.
Sect. 7.— Of the Prtestigiw, or .false Miracles, wrought by the Power of
Satan.
There is another sort of impostors mentioned in the same
canon under the name of ForrnvTai, which is a general
name for all, that use tricks and impostures ; but here it is
taken in a more restrained sense, for such as pretended to
work miracles by the power of magic, such as Jannes and
Jambres among the Egyptians, and Simon Magus among
the Jews, and Apollonius Tyanaeus and other impostors
among the Gentiles. They are otherwise called Qav/iaroirotoi
and ^Pjj^arjEc,1 by the Greeks, and Prcestigialqres by the Latin
writers. Their tricks were chiefly shewn in making false
appearances of things, and imposing upon men by the delu
sion of the outward senses. The ancient author of the
Recognitions, describes their art3 in the person of Simon
Magus, whom he brings in giving himself this vain-glo
rious character ; " 1 can make myself disappear to those,
that would apprehend me, and again, I can appear when
I please ; when I am minded to fly, I can pass through
mountains and stones, as through the mire ; when I cast
myself headlong from a precipice, I am carried as if I were
sailing to the earth without harm ; when I am bound, I can
loose myself, and bind them, that bound me ; when I am
close shut up in prison, I can cause the doors to open of
their own accord ; I can give life to "statues, and make them
appear as living men ; I can make trees grow suddenly out
of the earth, and raise up plants in a moment : I can throw
myself into the fire, and not be burnt ; I can change my
countenance, so as not to be known ; yea, I can shew my
self with two faces unto men : I can make myself a sheep

1 Theod. in 2 Thes. ii. ix. Ohie aXij&ij Srav/iaTu iroiSat oi cmb tuiv ipr]<pa»>
rag iinovviiiag I^ojtec. Athanasius, Quaest. 124. ad Antioch. 'Ot Xtyojitvoi
¦tyrttyattg, i§ naXiv avrog 6 dj/rt^piToc ipxo[i€Vog, iv favTaounrXavq. rac 60-
SraXfilig tS>v avS/pijiirtav. Suidas Voce Mrj/0o\oyoi. -Capitular. Aquisgran.<
lib. i. cap. lxiV. Calculatores, incantatores, tempestarii, &c.
2 Recognit, lib. ii. n. 9. ap. Coteler. p. 506.

234 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
or a goat ; I can give little children a beard ; and fly in the
air ; I can shew much gold, or turn lead into gold ; I can
set up kings, and dethrone them at pleasure." Now Ter
tullian1 observes, that Simon Magus, for these juggling prac
tices, and miracles belonging to his profession, was anathe
matised by the Apostles, and east offas an alien from the faith.
And all such sophisters, as he terms them, had ever the same
fate from the beginning of the Gospel. Which observation
of TertuUian's is most certainly true, and might be confirmed
by abundance of instances in ancient story ; and especially
of heresiarchs, or founders of new heresies, who pretended
commonly to work miracles and wonders, to gain a reputa
tion to their novel opinions. I will only mention one or two,
that were famous in this kind. The heretic Marcus, the
father of the Marcosians, is thus described by an ancient
author, who wrote before the time of Irenseus8 in these
words : " O Marcus, thou idol-maker and wonder-worker,
empiric in astrology and art of magic, by which thou dost
propagate thy seducing doctrines, making a shew of signs
and miracles to them, that are led into error by thee, which
are the works of the apostate power, Satan thy father ena
bles thee to do by the angelical power of Azazel, using thee
as the fore-runner of the antiehristian deceit." And Irenaeus3
himself takes notice of one of his juggling tricks, which
was, that when he pretended to consecrate the eucharist in
a cup of wine and water, he made it appear of a purple
and red colour, by a long prayer of invocation, that it
might be thought the grace from above distilled the blood
into the cup by his invocation. Such another imposture is
mentioned by Firmilian in his letter to Cyprian, where he
speaks of a woman, who pretended to be inspired by the
Holy Ghost, but was really acted by a diabolical spirit,* by

Tertul de Idol. cap. ix- Exinde et Simon Magus jam fidelis, quoniam
aliquid adhuc de circulatoria secta cogitaret, ut scilicet inter miracula pro
fessions sua? etiam Spiritum Sanctum per manuum impositionem enundina-
ret, maledictus ab Apostolis de fide ejectus est.  Et post Evangelium
nusquam invenias sophistas, nisi plane punitos.
I Iren- lib- '• caP- x»- 8 Iren. lib. i. cap. 9.
Firmil. Ep. lxxv. ad Cypr. p. 222. Emersit subito quaedam mulicr, qua

CHAP. V. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 235
which she counterfeited ecstasies, and pretended to pro
phesy, and wrought many wonderful and strange things,
and boasted that she would cause the earth to move. Not
that the devil has so great power, either to move the earth,
or shake the element by his command ; but the wicked
spirit foreseeing and understanding, that there will be an
earthquake, pretends to do that, which he foresees will
shortly come to pass. And by these lies and boastings,
the devil subdued the minds of many to obey him, and
follow him wheresoever he was pleased to command or
lead them. And he made that woman walk barefoot through
the snow in the depth of winter, and feel no trouble or harm
by running about after this fashion. But at last, after
having played many such pranks, one of the exorcists of
the Church discovered her to be a cheat, and shewed, that it
was a wicked spirit, which before was thought to be the Holy
Ghost. There are many other such instances in the history
of the Montanists1 and Pepuzians, and the Apellians and
Severians,3 mentioned by St. Austin and other writers : but
these are sufficient to shew what pretences were commonly
made by heretics to the power of working miracles, which
the Church, apprehending them to be wrought by the
power of Satan, and not by the Holy Spirit, rejected as im
postures, and punished the pretenders with the severest of
her censures. For so Eusebius3 out of Apollinaris particu
larly tells us of the Montanists, that their new prophesies,
being judged impious and profane, their doctrine was con
demned, and the authors expelled from the communion of
the Church, as enthusiasts and demoniacs, who were al
ways excluded from the participation of the holy mysteries,
whilst they remained under the power and agitation of
Satan. St. Basil* appoints the same penance for those, who
profess conjuration, yotyniav, as for those, who are guilty of

in extasi constituta, propheten se praeferret, et quasi Sancto Spiritu plena
siaageret.— Mirabilia quaedam ac portentosa perficiens, etfacere se terram
moveri polliceretur. Non quod daemoni tanta esset potestas, &c.
1 Vid. Aug. de Haeres. cap. xxvi. Euseb. lib. v. cap. 13.
2 Aug. ibid. cap. xxv. Euseb. lib. v. cap. xiv, et xvi.
3 Euseb. lib. v. cap. 16. * Basil, can. lxv.

230 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
murder, that is, twenty years in several stations of re
pentance.
Sec*. 8.-Of Observation of Days and Accidents, and making Presages and
Omens upon them.
There was one piece of superstition more, which the
Ancients frequently censure, as a breach of men's baptismal
vow, and part of the pomp and service of Satan, which they
professed to renounce in baptism. This was, the observa
tion of days and accidents, as lucky or unlucky, and making
presages and omens upon them. St. Chrysostom1 has a
large invective against this sort of superstition. ' The
pomps of Satan," says he, " are the theatre and the games
of the circus, together with the observation of days, and
presages and omens. And what are omens'? why, sup
pose when a man goes first out of his doors, he meets a
man, that has but 'one eye, or is lame, he reckons this omi
nous, or foreboding some ill fortune to him. This is part
of the pomps of Satan. For the meeting of a man does not
make the day evil, but the spending of it in sin. Keep from
sin, and the devil himself cannot hurt you : but if you make
presages upon meeting of a man, you discern not the
devil's snare, who makes you without reason an enemy to
one, who has done you no harm. But there is one thing
more ridiculous than this, which I am ashamed to speak,
and yet I must mention for your salvation. If a man meets a
virgin, he cries out presently, this will be a fruitless day with
me : but if he meets an harlot, it will be a good and lucky
day, and bring him in great gain and advantage. See how
the devil here hides his craft, to make us abhor a chaste
and modest woman, and love an impudent harlot. But
what shall a man say of those, who use inchantments and
ligatures, binding the brazen medals of Alexander the
Great about their heads or feeil Are these, I pray, the hopes

1 Chrys. Horn. xxi. ad Pop. Antioch. torn. i. p. 274. Tlojnrri aaraviKf)
j<ri Skarpa £, (Tnroo'popitu, iq irapari)p»)tTic iJfiEpwv kj kXtjoomc K) <7Uju/3o\a. See
also Horn, xxiii. de Noviluniis, cited before. Chap. iv. sect, 17. et Com
ment, in Galat. i. p. 973.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 23T
of a Christian, that after the cross and death of our Lord,
we should place our hopes of salvation or health in the
image of an heathen king 1 know you not what great
things the cross has done"? how it has destroyed death,
abolished sin, taken away the force of hell and the grave,
and dissolved the power of death % and canst thou not
trust it for curing thy bodily distempers 1 lt has raised the
whole world from the dead, and canst thou not confide in
it % but thou dost not only seek after such ligatures, but
inchantments, entertaining old drunken and staggering wo
men in thy house for this purpose. And the apology you
make for so doing, is worse than the error itself. The
woman, say you, who makes the charm, is a Christian, and
she does nothing- but make use of the name of God. For
that very reason I the more detest and abhor her, because
she uses the name of God to dishonour and reproach it ;
because she is called a Christian, and does the works of an
heathen. The devils confessed the name of God, yet they
were devils for all that : they said to Christ, We know Thee,
who Thou art, the Holy One of God, yet notwithstanding
he rebuked them and cast them out. Wherefore I beseech
you, keep yourselves pure from this deceit, and let this word,
I renounce thee Satan, be your staff". As you would not go
into the market without your shoes and clothes, so never go
forth of your doors, without first using this word, I renounce
thee, Satan, and thy pomp and service, and I make a cove
nant with Thee, O Christ. Go no where without this word,
and it will be your staff, your armour, your impregnable
tower. Join with this word the sign of the cross in your
forehead, and so not only the meeting of any man, but the
devil himself cannot hurt you." St. Austin gives a like
caution against this sort of superstitious observations.
" To this kind," says he,1 " belong all ligatures and
remedies, which the school of physicians reject and con
demn, whether in inchantments, or in certain marks, which

1 Aug. de Doct. Christ, lib. ii. cap. 20. Ad hoc genus pertinent etiam om
nes ligaturae, atque remedia, qua medicorum quoque disciplina condemnat,
&c. It. Enchirid. c'. lxxix. Magnum peccatum dies observare et menses
et tempora et annos, &c.

238 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
they call characters, or in other things, that are to be
hanged and bound about the body, and kept in a dancing
posture, not for any temperament of the body, but for cer
tain significations, either occult or manifest : which by a
gentler name they call physical, that they may not seem to
affright men, with the appearance of superstition, but tlo
good in a natural way : such are ear-rings hanged upon the
tip of each ear, and rings made of an ostrich's .bones for
the fingers, or when you are told in a fit of the convulsions
or shortness of breath, to hold your left thumb with your
right hand." To which may be added a thousand vain ob
servations, as if any of our members beat ; if when two
friends are walking together, a stone, or a dog, or a child
happens to come between them : they tread the stone to
pieces, as the divider of their friendship, and this is tolerable
in comparison of beating an innocent child, that comes be
tween them. But it is more pleasant, that sometimes the
children's quarrel is revenged by the dogs ; for many times
they are so superstitious, as to dare to beat the dog, that
comes between them, who, turning again upon him, that
smites him, sends him, from seeking a vain remedy, to seek
a real physician indeed. Hence proceed likewise those
other superstitions, for a man to tread upon his threshold
when he passes by his own house : to return back to bed again,
if he chance to sneeze whilst he is putting on his shoes: to
return into his house, if he stumble at his going out: if the
rats gnaw his clothes, to be more terrified with the suspicion
of some future evil, than concerned for his present loss. He
says, Cato gave a wise and smart answer to such an one, who
came in some consternation to consult him about the rats
having gnawed his stockings : that, said he, is no great
wonder, but it would have been a wonder indeed, if the
stockings had gnawed the rats. St. Austin mentions the
witty answer of a wise heathen, to convince Christians this
better of the unreasonableness and vanity of all such super
stitions observations. And he concludes, that all such
arts, whether of trifling or more noxious superstition, are
to be rejected and avoided by Christians, as proceeding
originally from some pernicious society between men and

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 239 1
devils,1 and being the compacts and agreement of such a
treacherous and deceitful friendship. The Apostle forbids
us to have fellowship with devils : and that, he says, re
spects not only idols and things offered to idols, but all
imaginary signs pertaining to the worship of idols, and
also all remedies and other observations, which are not
appointed publicly by God to promote the love of God -
and our neighbour, but proceed from the private fancies
of men, and tend to corrupt the hearts of poor deluded
mortals. For these things have no natural virtue in them,
but owe all their efficacy to a presumptuous confederacy with
devils : and they are full of pestiferous curiosity, tormenting
anxiety, and deadly slavery. They were first taken up, not
for any real power to be discerned in them, but gained their
power by men's observing them. And therefore, by the
devil's art, they happen differently to different men, according
to their own apprehensions and presumptions. For the
great deceiver knows how to procure things agreeable to
every man's temper, and ensnare him by his own sus
picions and consent. As this is an excellent account of
these superstitious observations, so it seems to intimate,
that some difference was made, between the professors of
these arts, and those, who through ignorance were deluded
by them: and therefore, though the former might fall
under the severest discipline of the Church, yet the latter,
seemed rather to have been chastised by admonitions and
rebukes, as here by St. Austin and St. Chrysostom, and
not to have incurred the highest censure of excommuni
cation, because of their simplicity, and perhaps because of
the numbers of those, who were daily inclined to mind such
observations of days and accidents, without considering
either the original of the superstition, or the mischief thereby

1 Aug, de Doct. Christ, lib. ii. cap. 23. Omnes igitur artes hujusmodi
vel nugatorite vel noxia superstitionis, ex quadam pestiferS societate ho
minum et daemonum, quasi pacta infidelis et dolosae amicitiae constituta,
penitus sunt repudianda et fugienda Christiano, &c. Vid plura ap gra
tian. caus. 26. quasst. vii, cap. 15. and 16. Non observetis dies qui dicontur
iEgyptiaci, &c.

240 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
done to piely and religion.1 I have insisted a little longer
upon these things, because it is to • be feared, there
is always reason for a serious caution against such super
stitions, which are apt to creep upon unwary men in all
ages of the Church.

CHAP. VI.
Of Apostacy into Judaism and Paganism, of Heresy and
Schism, Sacrilege and Simony.
Sect. 1. — Of such as apostatised totally from Christianity to Judaism.
Besides the forementioned crimes against the first and
second commandments, there were a great many others
worth our observance, as bringing men under the severest
censures of the Church. Among these the disposition,
which many shewed toward the antiquated religion and
ceremonies of the Jews, is often taken notice of by the
Ancients in their accounts of Church discipline. And of
these we may observe three sorts or degrees. Some en
tirely abandoned the Christian religion, and went totally
over to the Jews ; others mingled the Jewish ceremonies
and some of their doctrines with the Christian religion ; and
others, complied so far with them, as to communicate with
them in many of their unlawful practices, though they made
no formal profession of their religion. Of the first sort
was Aquila, the translator of the Bible, who at first was a
Christian, as Epiphanius3 informs us, till being expelled from
the Church for adhering to astrology, he fled over to the
Jews and took sanctuary among them, setting about a new
translation of the Bible in spite to the Christians. And
such were many in the days of Barchochab3 the great impos
tor, who compelled many Christians to deny and curse

1 Consult Mr. Thier's Traite des Superstitions, cap. xxiii. and Bayle. Mis-
eel. Reflex, occasioned by a comet, sect. 89, * Epitaph, de Ponder.
et mensur. n. 15. torn. ii. p. 171.

CHAP. VI. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 241
Christ, as Justin Martyr acquaints us.1 Now, though the
imperial laws allowed those, that were originally Jews, the
freedom of their religion, and many privileges for a long
time under the reigns of Christian Emperors, yet they se
verely prohibited any Christian going over to them, and laid
very great penalties upon all such apostates. Constantine2
left it to the discretion of the judges to punish such apos
tates with death, or any other condign punishment. His
son Ccnstantius subjected them to confiscation of goods.3
And Valentinian junior laid upon them the penalty of
being intestate,* denying them and all other apostates the
privilege of disposing of their estates by will. And in com
pliance with these laws of the state, the Church, after she
had anathematised such apostates, shewed her detestation
cf them further in denying them the privilege of being ac
cepted as credible witnesses in any of her courts of judica
ture. For he cannot be faithful to ma.5, says the fourth
Council of Toledo,5 who has been unfaithful to God. There
fore those Jews, who were heretofore Christians, nm\ now
prevaricate from the faith of Christ, ought not to be admit
ted to give testimony, although they call themselves Chris
tians, because, as they are suspected in the faith of Christ,
so their credit ought to be questioned in human testimony.
Therefore their evidence is of no force, seeing they have
falsified in the faith ; neither is any credit to be given to them,
who have cast off the word of truth.

1 Justin. Apol. ii. p 72. 2 Cod. Theod. lib. xxvi. tit. 8. De
Judaeis. leg. i. Si quis ex populo. ad eorum nefariain sectam accesserit, et
conciliabulis eorum se applicaverit, cum ipsis pcenas mcritag sustir.ebit,
a Ibid. leg. vii. Si quis ex C'hristiano Juiav.is eft'ectus  facultates ejus
dominio fisci jussimus vindicari. 4 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 7.
De Apostatis. leg. iii. 6- Con. Tolet. iv. can, f!3. Non potest
erga homines esse fidelis, qui Deo exstilerit infidelis. Judaei ergo, qui du-
dum Christiani effecli sunt, et nunc Christi fidem praevaricati sunf, ad testi
monium dicendnm admitti non debent, quamvis esse se ChristianosannM'.ici-
e.nt: quia sicut in fide Christi suspect! sunt, ita in teslimonin humano duhii
hnbentur, &c.
VOL. VI. It

£42 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Sect. 2.— Of such as mingled the Jewish Religion and the Christian
together.
Another sort there were, who did not wholly cast off' the
Christian religion, but made up a new religion for them
selves by a mixture of both together. Such a miscellany
was the heresy of the Nazarenes, and those of the Ebionites,
and Cerinthians, and Elcesaites, and Sampseans, who ob
served circumcision, and other rituals of the Jewish law,
together with so much as they retained of the Christian ;
as may be seen in the accounts, which St. Austin,1 and other
ancient writers give of them. And Gothofred thinks the
Coelicolce, who are specified and condemned in two or three
laws of Honorius in the Theodosian Code, were a mongrel
sect of the same nature. They joined circumcision and
baptism together ; agreeing both with Jews and Christians
in rejecting idols, and worshipping only heaven, that is,
the God of heaven, whence they had the title of Cwlicolee;
but in this they agreed with the Jews only, that they rejec
ted the doctrine of a Trinity in the Godhead, and only wor
shipped God in one person. In which respect the Sabelliahs
also, and Paulianists, and Praxeans, and Theodotians, and
Arians, and Photinians, who either denied the divinity of
Christ, or confounded the three divine persons into one, are
commonly charged by the Ancients as flying back to Judaism
in this point, whilst they subverted the true doctrine of the
Christian Trinity by their heterodox innovations. It is parti
cularly remarked by learned men concerning Paulus Samosa-
tensis,2 that the true reason, why he denied the divinity of
Christ, was to compliment Queen Zenobia, who was a
Jewish proselyte : for he thought, that by reducing Christ to
be a mere man, he might reconcile both religions, and take
away the partition wall, that divided the Jews and Christians,
nothing being so great an offence to the Jews as that Christ
was owned by his disciples to be God. There was another
sect which called themselves Hypsistarians, that is, wor-

1 Aug. de Hares, cap. S, 9, 10, et 32. * Maurice'i
Answer to Baxter's Church Hist. p. 287. Baron, an 265. n. 1.

CHAP. VI.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 243
shippers of the Most, High God, whom they worshipped,
as the Jews, only in one person : and they observed their
sabbaths ; and used distinction of meats, clean and un
clean, though they did not regard circumcision, as Grego
ry Nazianzen,1 whose father was once one of this sect, gives
the account of them. Now it is certain, the Church never
allowed any of these miscellaneous doctrines, or mongrel
sects: but condemned them all as heretics, and excluded
them from her communion. And the laws of the state were
particularly severe against the Ccelicolce, those who joined
circumcision and baptism together, there being three laws
of Honorius in the Theodosian Code directly formed against
them. In the first of which he ranks them with the Donatists, and
Manichees, and Priscillianists, and Heathens; orderingallge-:
neral penal laws against heretics to be put in execution against
them ; and particularly appointing, that the houses of the
Ccelicolce, where that new sect held their conventicles,
should with the rest be forfeited to the Church.2 In the se
cond,3 he calls them the new audacious sect pf the Jews,
which presumed to disturb the sacraments of the Church,
because they rebaptized the Catholics, as the Dohatjsts did.
In the third,* he styles them again, " the new sect of the
Ccelicolce, who broughtin an unheard of superstition." And
he threatens them, " That unless within a year they return^
ed to the service of God and the Christian worship, all the
laws made against heretics should lay hold of them." St.
Austin also in one of his Epistles mentions this sect of the
Ccelicolce, b and intimates, that they joined with the Donatists

1 Naz. Orat. xix. in Fuaere Patris. torn. i. p. 28?. 2 Cod. Theod.
lib. xvi. tit. v. de Hsret, leg. 43. Ita ut aedeficia vel horum, vel ccelicolarum
etiam (quae nescio cujus dogmatis novi conventus habent) ecclesiis vindicen-
tur. 3 Ibid. leg. xliv. Donatistarum Haereticorum, Judaeorum
nova atque inusitata detexit audacia, quod Catholica? fidei velint sacramenta
turbare, &c. * Lib. xvi. tit. viii. De Judaeis, Ccelicolis, et
Samaritanis. leg. xix. Ccelicolarum nomen inailditum quodammodo novum
crimen superstitionis vindicavit. Hi nisi infra anni terminos ad Dei cultum
venerationemque Christianam conversi fuerint, his legibus quibus praecepr
imushaereticos adstringi, se quoque noverint adtinendos. 6 Aug.
Ep. 163. ad Elusium. p. 284. Jam miseramus ad majorem coelicoiarum
quem audieramus novi apud eos baptismi institutorera instituisse, et multos
fllo sacrilegio seduxis»e.
R 2

244 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
in rebaptizing the Catholics. And that he means a sect
which apostatised from the Christian to the Jewish religion,
is evident from the title of Majores, given by h.m to their
ministers For by this title the Jewish ministers are fre
quently distinguished in the Theodosian Code.1 So that it
is plain, that this sect of the Ccelicoke was a mixture of the
Christian and Jewish religion together, and as such was
both punished by the laws of the State; and rejected from
communion by the laws of the Church.
Sect. 3.— Of such as communicated with the Jews in their unlawful
Rites and Practices.
Besides these, there were some Christians, who neither
went over wholly to the Jews' religion, nor in any main point
complied with them, who yet in some more remote rites and
practices refused not to communicate with them, as in ob
serving their festivals and feasting, and marrying with them
and receiving their Eulogies, and having recourse to them
for phylacteries and charms to cure diseases: all which
therefore are condemned under the penalty of ecclesiastical
censure. The Council of Laodicea forbids Christians to
Judaize by resting on the Sabbath,2 under pain of Anathema :
likewise it prohibits keeping Jewish feasts, and accepting3
festival presents sent from them: as also receiving unleave
ned bread from them, which is accounted a partaking with
them in their impiety. To the same purpose, among the
Apostolical Canons we find one forbidding to fast or feast
with the Jews, or to receive anv of then- festival presents,4, or
unleavened bread under the penalty of deposition to a clergy
man, and excommunication to a layman. And by another of the
same canons,5 to carry oil to a Jewish synagogue, or set up
lights on their festivals, is paralleled with the crime of doing

1 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. viii. DeJudais, Ccelieolis, &c.leg. i. Judffiis,
et niajoiibus eorum et I'atriarchis volumus intimari, &c. It. leg. xxiii.
Annati et majoribus Judaeorum. It. lib. xvi. tit. ix. leg. iii. Eadem In.
scriptio, 2 Con. Laod. can. xxix.
¦ Ibid. 37, et 38. * Canon. Apost. 70.
a Apost. can. 71.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 245
the like for an heathen temple or festival, and both of them
equally punished with excommunication. Soa bishop, priest,
or deacon, who celebrates the Easter feslival, before the
vernal equinox with the Jews,1 is to be deposed. Though
this is a little more severe than the constitution, that was
made about it in the time of Irenseus, and afterward was con
firmed by Constantine3 and the Council of Nice: for they
forbid the celebration of Easter with the Jews, but lay not
the penalty of deposition or excommunication upon those,
that followed that custom, because thev had some pretence
of apostolical tradition for their practice. The Council of
Eliberis3 forbids Christians to have recourse to the Jews for
blessing the fruits of the earth, and that under the penalty
of excommunication, because it was a reproach to the
manner of blessing them in the Church, as if that was weak
and ineffectual. The same Council* forbids both clergy and
laity to eat with the Jews, upon pain of being east out of
the communion of the Church. And the reason of this is
assigned by the Council of Agde ;6 because they use not
the meats, that are commonly used among Christians : there
fore it is an unworthy and sacrilegious thing to eat with
them : for as much as they reputed those things unclean,
which the Apostle allows us to receive ; and so Christians
are rendered inferior to the Jews, if we eat of such things
as they set before us, and they contemn what we offer them.
Which canon is repeated in the same words in the Council of

1 Apost. can. viii. Confer. Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. t. leg. 9. et tit. vi.
leg. 6. De Protopaschitis 2 Constant. Ep. ap. Euseb.
deVit. Const, lib. iii. cap. 18. et 19. s Con. Eliber. can.
xlix. Admoneri placuit possessores, ut non patiantur fructus suos, quos
a Deo percipiunt cum gratiarum actione, a. Judaeis benedici, ne nostram
irritam et infirmam faciant benedictionem. Si quis post interdictum facere
usurpaverit, penitus ab ecclesia abjiciatur. * Ibid. can. 1.
Si vero aliquis clericus vel fidelis fuerit, qui cum Judaeis cibum sumpserit,
placuit eum a communione abstinere, ut debeat emendari.
4 Con. Agathen. can. xl. Omnes deinceps clerici sive laici Judffiorum con
vivia evitent ; nee eos ad conviviuin quisquam excipiat: quia cum apud
Christianos cibis communibus non utantur, indignum est atque sacrilegu^n
eorum cibos a Christianis sumi ; quum ea qua? Apostolo permittente, nos
sumimus, ab illis judicentur iinmunda, &c.

246 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE, [BOOK XVI.
Vannes,1 and there is a rule in the Council of Epone to
the same purpose.2 It appears also from the fourth Council
of Toledo, that the Spanish Churches were much infested
with this sort of complying and Judaising Christians ; some
patronising the Jews in their perfidiousness ; others turning
downright apostates, and submitting to circumcision ; and
others indifferently conversing with them to the manifest
danger of their owrn subversion. Against which last sort of
compilers the sixty-first canon of that Council is particularly
directed ; and there are six or seven canons more in the
same place one after another relating to cases of the like
nature, which need not here be related. The Council of
Clermont3 makes it excommunication for a Christian to
marry a Jew. And the third Council of Orleans prohibits
it under the same penalty,4 together with sequestration of
the persons from each other. St. Chrysostom inveighs
against those, who went out of curiosity to the Jewish syna
gogues, saying,5 " It was the same thing as going to an
idol temple: if any one sees thee, who hast knowledge, go
to a synagogue to see the trumpets, shall not the conscience
of him that is weak, be emboldened to admire the Jewish
ceremonies % Although there be no idol there, yet the
devils inhabit the place. Which 1 say not only of the syna
gogue which is here, but that of Daphne, that more impure
pit of hell, which they call Matrona. I hear many of the
faithful go thither, and sleep in the place. But God forbid
I should call them the faithful. For the temple of Apollo
and Matrona are equally profane. Is not that a place of
impiety, where devils dwell, although there be no image
there 1 Where the murderers of Christ assemble, where
the cross is cast out, where God is blasphemed, where the
Father is not known, where the Son is reviled, where the
grace of the Spirit is rejected V He particularly bewails

1 Con. Veneticum. can. xii. 2 Con. Epaunense. c»n. xv.
V;d. Con. Matiscon. i. can. xv. Aurelian. iii. can. xiii.
s Con. Arvernehse. can. vi. * Con. Aurel.iii. can. xiii.
Vid. Aug. 234. Et Ambros. de Abrahamo. lib. i. cap. 9.
6 Chrys. Horn. i. cont. Jud. torn. i. p. 442. et 443.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 247
those,1 who went either to see or join with them in the ce
lebration of their fasts and festivals, the feast of trumpets*
the feast of tabernacles, and the fast of the great day of
expiation, which came all in the month Tisri, or Septem
ber, when he preached his sermons against the Jews. He
notes also the wickedness of some,2 who would draw others
by force to go and take an oath in a Jewish synagogue,
upon a most unaccountable persuasion, that an oath given
there was more formidable than any other whatsoever. For
these and many other reasons, which he there largely pur
sues,3 he styles all such only " half -christians, Xpiziavoi
e§ n/xurua^." He has two other whole sermons against
those,2 who observed the Jewish fasts, and frequented their
synagogues : in the latter of which he addresses himself to
them in these words : " We have now clearly proved, that
the places where the Jews assemble, are inhabited by
devils. How then darestthou, after being in the chorus of
devils, return to the assembly of the Apostles'? How is it,
that thou are not afraid, after communicating with those,
who shed the blood of Christ, to come and communicate at
the holy table, and partake of that precious blood 1 Does
not horror and trembling seize thee, after having committed
so great a wickedness ? Dost thou not reverence the holy
table ? Wherefore, I exhort you, admonish and edify one
another. If any man be a catechumen, who labours under
this distemper, let him be driven from the doors of the
Church : if he be one of the faithful, and initiated in the
holy mysteries, let him be driven from the holy table. All
sins need not exhortation and counsel : there are some, that
naturally require a more quick and sharp abscission. I
therefore from henceforth shall abstain from all further ad
monition, and protest and proclaim, If any man love not
the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. And what
greater argument can there be of any one's not loving
Christ, than his communicating with those in their festivals,
who killed Christ % It is not I that anathematize these, but
1 Chrys. Horn. i. cont. Jnd. torn. i.p. 433. e Ibid. p. 437.
3 Ibid. p. 440. * Horn. Iii. In eos qui Pascha jejunant. et-
Hom. liii. In eos qui cum Judaeis jejunant. torn. v. p. 721.

2iS THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Paul, yea Christ that speaks by Paul, and says, ''Whoever
of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace."
In his comment upon those words of St. Paul to Titus/
" Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the
faith," he speak? again of this matter: " If they, who
make a distinction of meats, are not sound, but weak, what
shall we say of those, who fast with the Jews, and observe
their sabbaths with them, and go to their synagogues, to
that at Daphne, called the cave of Matrona, and that in
Cilicia, called the place of Cronus, or Saturn 1" In his
sixth Homily against the Jews,2 he inveighs vehemently
against those, who went to the synagogues to g-et charms
and amulets to cure diseases, in which the Jews pretended
to a peculiar art above others, and this tempted many vain
Christians to have recourse to them : but of this I have
spoken before in the last chapter out of Chrysostom, and
shall only here add, that the Jews boasted much of this art
as coming to them from some apocryphal writings of King
Solomon, such as his Book of Prayers, or Inchantments to
cure Diseases, and his Book of Exorcisms, or Conjura
tions to cast out Devils, both which are mentioned by Jose-
phus,3 who magnifies the art as still remaining among
them, speaking of one Eleazer, who, according to the rules
there prescribed, pretended to cure one possessed with a
devil in the presence of Vespasian. Origen also* mentions
these books, and says, some Christians abjured devils after
the same manner by forms out of Apocryphal and Hebrew
books, in imitation of those of Solomon, which he does
by no means allow, but says, it is judaical, and not accor
ding to the power given by Christ to his disciples. Bv all
which it appears, that as the Jews pretended much to this
power, so many Christians were so vain as to have secret

1 Horn. iii. in Tit. p. 1709. * Horn. vi. inJudaeos. torn.
i. p. 536, &c. See this before, chapter v. sect. 6. 8 Joseph.
Antiq. lib. viii. cap. 2. * Orig. Tract, xxxv. in Mat. p. 188.
Non est secundum potestatem datam a. Salvato re adjurare daemonia : .fudaicum
enim est. Hoc etsi aliquando a nostri s tale aliquidfiat, similefit ei, quod a.
Salonionc scriptis adjurationibus soient daeinones adjurari. 'Sed ipsi qui
utuutur adjurationibus illis, uliquoties nee idoneis conslitulis libris utuntur.
Quibusdam auti'in el de IIebrax> acceptisadjuraut dannonia.

CMAF. VI.j CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 240
recourse to them, (for Chrysostom says, they were ashamed
to do it in public,) imagining their inchantments to be of
more efficacy than any others. Which was a double crime,
first to make use of charms, and then to take them from
the enemies of Christ, to the flagrant scandal of the Chris
tian religion. Whenever therefore any were convicted of this
crime, they were sure to feel the utmost severity of ecclesi
astical censure.
Sect. 4.— Of such as apostatised voluntarily into Heathenism.
Another sort of apostates were such as fell away volun
tarily into heathenism, after they had for some time made
profession of Christianity. These differed from common
lapsers into idolatry in this, that the common lapsers
fell by violence, and the fear and terror of persecu
tion; but these fell away by principle and choice, and
out of a dislike to religion, and love of Gentilism,
which they preferred before the religion of Christ, when
they might without any molestation have continued in it.
And as the one usually returned as soon as they had oppor
tunity, so the other commonly continued apostates all their
days. The imperial laws, at least from the time of
Theodosius, denied such the common privilege of Roman
subjects, depriving them of the power of disposing of their
estates by will. As appears from two laws of Theodosius
the Great in the Theodosian Code,1 which the other suc
ceeding Jilmperors confirmed. Particularly Valentinian
junior not only denied them the power of making their own
wills, but of receiving any benefit from others by will:3

1 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 7. de Apostatis. leg. i. His, qui ex Christianis
Pagani facti sunt, eripiatur facultas j usque testandi. Omne defuncti, si quod
est, test-amentum, submota conditione, rescindatur. It leg. ii. Ibid. leg. iii.
iv. v. vi. vii. 2 Ibid. leg. iv. Hi qui sanctam fidem prodide-
rint et sanctum baptisma profanaverint, a consortio omnium segregati, sint
a testimoniis alieni, testamenti non habeant factionem, nulli in han-editate
succedant, a nemine scribantur haeredes. Quos etiam prfficepissemus procul
abjici,.aclongius amandari, nisi pcenae visum fuissent esse majoris, versari
inter homines, et hominum carere suffragiis. Sed nee unquam in statum
pristinum revertentur ; non flagitium morum obliteretur poenitentia, &c.

250 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
ho man might make them his heirs, nor could they succeed
to any inheritance. They were to have no commerce or
society with others ; their testimony was not to be taken in
law; they were to be infamous and of no credit among.men,
among whom they were allowed to live withoot banishing,
only to make it the greater punishment, to live among men,
and not enjoy the common privileges of men. Nay, they
were never to regain their ancient state : though they re
pented and returned, this should be no benefit to them in
this respect ; their repentance should never obliterate tl\eir
crime, because they had broken their faith to God. This
was their condition in temporals. As to their spiritual
estate, by some canons of the Church they were as severely
treated. The Council of Eliberis1 denies communion to the
last to all such apostates, because they doubled their crime,
not only in absenting from the Church, but in defiling them
selves with idolatry also. Whereas such lower apostates
as only absented themselves from religious assemblies for
a long time,2 and did not commit idolatry, 'if afterward
they returned again to the Church, they might be admitted
upon ten years penance to the communion. Cyprian says,3
many of his predecessors in Afric denied communion to the
very last to all such as were guilty of the three great
crimes, apostacy, adultery, and murder. And though this
rigour was a little abated in his time, yet they still held
idolatrous apostates to penance all their lives. Which is
also noted by Siricius,1 bishop of Rome, who says, apos
tates were to do penance as long as they lived, and only to

Cod. Theod. leg. v. Si quis splendor conlatus est in eos— perdant, ut de
loco suo statuque dejecti, perpetuS. urantur infamia, &c. Vid. leg. vi. et vii.
ibid, et Cod. Theod. xi. tit. 39. de Fide Testium. leg. xi.
1 Con. Eliber. can. i. Placuit inter eos, qui post fid,em baptismi salutaris
adulta aetate ad templum idololatraturus accesserit, et fecerit quod est crimen
principale, quia est summum scelus, placuit nee in fine eum communionem
accipere. 2 Con. Eliber. can. xlvi. Si quis fidelis apostata
per infinita tempora ad ecclesiam non accesserit ; si tamen aliquando fuerit
reversus, nee fuerit idololatra, post decern annos placuit communionem ac
cipere. s Cypr. Ep. Iii. al. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 110.
4 Siric. Ep. i. ad Himerium. cap. iii. Apostatis, quamdiu vivunt, agenda
ooenitentia est, &c. See before chap. iv. sect. 4.

CHAP. VI.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

251

have the grace of reconciliation at the point of death. And
this favour was allowed them only upon proviso, that they
returned and submitted to penance voluntarily in their life
time, before any necessity or sickness drove them to it : for
if they continued apostates to the last extremity, and only
desired to be reconciled, when the fear of imminent death
was upon them, then Cyprian assures us,1 it was denied
them ; because it was not repentance, but the fear of ap
proaching death only that made them desire a reconciliation.
And the first Council of Aries made a like decree,2 that
such apostates should not be received to communion, unless
they recovered, and brought forth fruits worthy of repen
tance. The true reason of which severity was to deter men
from depending too much on a death-bed repentance. For
except in the case of martyrdom, which Cyprian allows,3
such apostates had no time to demonstrate by their works
that they were real penitents ; and therefore the Church
denied them absolution, and remitted them wholly to God's
unerring judgment.
Sect. 5. — Of Heretics and Schismatics, and their Punishments, both Eccle
siastical and Civil.
The next sort of delinquents against the first command
ment were heretics and schismatics, the one of which trans
gressed against the doctrine of faith delivered by the
Church, and the other against the unity of the worship and
discipline, which compacted the Church into one mystical
body of Christ. In each of these there were several de
grees of sin, which were accordingly treated with diff'erent
degrees of ecclesiastical censure. But because it was im
possible for lawgivers to know the particular motives and
inducements that might engage men in heresy or schism,
therefore the laws were made in general terms against
them, and the allowances that were proper to be made upon
any occasion for the abatement of the rigor of them with
1 Cypr. ibid. p. 111. Nee dignus est in morte accipere solatium, qui non
cogitavit se esse inoriturum. s Con. Arelat. i. can. 23.
* Cypr. de Lapsis. p. 127. It Ep. xiv. al. 19. et Ep. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 102.

252 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
respect to particular persons, were left to the discretion of
the judges, that were to put them in execution. I shall
first give a short account of the civil penalties, that were in
flicted on them by the imperial laws of the State, and then
consider the ecclesiastical punishments, that were inflicted
on them by the laws of the Chuich.
Sect. 6.— Of the Civil Punishments inflicted on them by the Laws of the
State.
The laws of the State made against heretics and schis
matics by the Christian Emperors from the time of
Constantine, are chiefly comprised under one title, de H<e-
reticis, in the Theodosian Code, which are too many and
long to be here recited: therefore I shall only give a short
abstract of them, as they are collected by Gothofred in his
premonition to that title.1 There he observes eleven distinct
kinds of punishment inflicted on them in general, besides
the particular laws, that were made against their teachers,
their bishops and clergy, and their conventicles, and all such
as favoured or abetted them.
The first of these is the general note of infamy affixed to
them all in common: the laws always styling them infa
mous persons. Leg. 7, 13, 54. de Hcereticis. Leg. 2. de
Fide Catholica.
Secondly, The affixing on some particular sects special
names of infamy and reproach ; as when Constantine ordered
the Arians to be called Porphyrians: and Theodosius Junior
the Kestorians to be branded with the name of Simonians.
Leg. 66. de Hcereticis.
Thirdly, All commerce forbidden to be held with them.
Leg. 17, IS, 36, 40, 48. de Hcereticis.
Fourthly, The depriving them of all offices of profit and
dignity in the Militia Pdlaiina, or civil administration.
Which was first enacted by Theodosius, and confirmed by
the succeeding emperors. Leg. 9, 23, 29, 42, 48, 58, 61,
65. Particularly Gothofred commends that, as an elegant

1 Gothofred. Paratitlon. ad Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 5. de Haereticis.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 253
saying of Honorius, Leg. 42, de Hcereticis. " Nullus nobis
s?t aliqua raiione conjunctus, qui d nobis fide et religione
discedat, We will have no one employed about us, that differs
from us in faith and religion." Yet he observes that all
burdensome offices, both of the camp and curia, what we
now call military and municipal offices, were imposed upon
them. Which is confirmed by one of Justinian's Novels,1
which the learned reader may see in the margin.
Fifthly, they were rendered intestate, that is, they were
unqualified either to dispose of their estates by will, or re
ceive estates from any others. Thus particularly the
Manichees were punished, Leg. 7, 9, 18, 65. De Hcereticis.
et Leg. 3. De Apostatis. And so the Eumonians, Leg. 17,
25, 49, 50, 58. De Hcereticis. ' And the Donatists,
Leg. 54. De Hcereticis. et Leg. 4. " Ne sanctum baptisma
iteretur." Pursuant to which laws all the goods of heretics,
or whatever was left them, were liable to be confiscated
either to the Emperor's exchequer, or to the people of
Rome, Leg. 7, 9, 17, 18, 49. De Hcereticis.
Sixthly, The right of giving or receiving donations was
denied them, Leg. 7, 9, 36, 40, 49, 50, 58, 65. De
Hcereticis. et Leg. 4. " Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur.''
Only by one law some fewr persons were excepted, to whom
they might give donations, Leg. 65. De Hcereticis.
Seventhly, the Manichees; Cataphrygians, Priscillianists,
or followers of Priscilla, the Montanists, Donatists, and
all that were rebaptised by them, are deprived of the right
of contracting, buying, and selling, Leg. 40, 48, 54. de
Hcereticis, et Leg. 4. " Ne sanctum baftisma iteretur."
Eighthly, pecuniary mulcts and fines were imposed upon
them, Leg. 39, 52, 54. de Hcereticis. And these are often
mentioned by St. Austin,8 who yet intimates that they were
1 Justin. Novel, xlv. Sunto decuriones, quemadmodum jam cohortalibus
ante legibus expressum est; neque ullus religionis cultus tali eos fortunS
eximito.— Indigni tamen omni curiali existunto honore. Et quia multa
leges decurionibus privilegia tribuunt, turn ne ictus fustium illis inferatur
&c. nullo horum perfruuntor. — Implento tam personalia quam patrimonialia
munera, neque eos lex ab his eximat: honore autem nullo perfruuntor, sed
fortunam sustinento cum infamia.
3 Aug. Ep. 68. ad Jannar. p. 124. Poena decern librarum auri, quae in

254 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
seldom executed against them, and frequently begged off
by the Catholics interceding for them.
Ninthly, they were proscribed, transported, and banished,
Leg. 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 40, 5>2, 53, 57, 58. De
Hcereticis. Thus Sozomen says,1 Constantine banished
Arius, and all who opposed the decrees of the Council of
Nice. And St. Austin says,9 Constantine banished the
Donatists, and all the succeeding Emperors, except Julian
the apostate, made severe laws against them. And Julian
only recalled them in devilish policy, thinking by division
of Christians into several sects, to destroy them totally out
of the world. Honorius banished Jovinian into Boa, an
island of Dalmatia, as is said in the law particularly made
against him in the Code.3 And Theodosius junior banished
Nestorius, as the historians note,* after the Council of
Ephesus had deposed him.
Tenthly, they were also in many cases subjected to cor
poral punishment, scourging, &c. before they were sent into
banishment, Leg. 21, 53, 54, 57. De Hcereticis. And
Leg. 4. " Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur."
Eleventhly, finally in some special cases they were terri
fied by sanguinary laws, which made them liable to death,
though by the connivance of the princes, or the intercession
of the Church they were rarely put in execution against
them. Gothofred says, the first law of this kind was made
by Theodosius, Anno 382, against the Encratites, the
Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichees, which
js the ninth law De Hcereticis. After which example many
other such laws were made against the heretical priests,
who pretended to exercise their superstition against the
prohibition of the law : and against such possessors as
allowed them a conventicle to meet in : and against such as

hsereticos ab imperatoribus fuerat constituta, &c. Vid. Ep. 1. ad Bonifac,
Item. Ep. 166, 167, 173. Cont. Crescon. lib. iii. cap. 47. Cont. Epist,
Parmen. lib. i. cap. 12. ' Sozom. lib. i. cap. 20.
2 Aug. Ep. 152. ad Donatistas. Ep. 166. y. 289.
8 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v. De Haweticis. leg. 53.
Socrat. lib. vii. cap. 34. Evangr. lib. i. cap. 7-

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 255
retained and concealed their pernicious books. Leg. 15,
16, 34, 35, 36, 38, 43, 44, 51, 53, 54, 56, 63. De Hce
reticis. Besides these laws and punishments, which chiefly af
fected their persons, Gothofred observes several other laws,
which tended to the extirpation of heresy. Such as
First, those which forbid heretical teachers to propagate.
their doctrine publicly or privately. Leg. 3, 5, 13, 24.
De Hcereticis. and Leg. 2. " Ne sanctum baptisma
iteretur." Secondly, the laws which forbid heretics to hold public
deputations by gathering companies of people together.
Leg. 46. De Hcereticis. et Leg. I, et 2, et 3, " De his
qui super religione contendunt."
Thirdly, those which forbid heretics to ordain bishops,
presbyters, or any other clergy. Leg. 12, 14, 21, 22, 24,
26, 27, 57, 58, 65. De Hcereticis.
Fourthly, such as deny to those, that are so ordained, the
names and privileges of bishops and clergy. Leg. 1. 24,
26,28. De Hcereticis. Leg. 2, et 3. Ke Episcopis. Leg.l.
" Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur."
Fifthly, such laws as prohibit all heretical conventicles
and assemblies. Leg. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19,20,
21, 26, 30, 45, 52, 53, 54, 56, 65, De Hcereticis. et Leg. 1.
Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur."
Sixthly, such as forbid heretics to build conventicles.
Leg. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 30, 65. De Hcereticis. et Leg. 3,
De Fide Catholica. And forbid any one to leave any
legacy to them. Leg. 65. de Hcereticis. And ordering
both the conventicles and whatever was so bequeathed to,
them, either to be confiscated to the public exchequer.
Leg. 3, 4, 8, 12, 21, 30. de Hcereticis. Or else to be
given to the use of the Catholic Churches. Leg. A3, 52, 54,
56, 57, 65. de Hcereticis. et Leg.2. " Ne sanctum baptisma
iteretur." Only excepting the Novatians, to whom Con
stantine shewed a little favour, because though they were
schismatical, yet they held to the Catholic faith. Leg. 2.
de Hcereticis. Socrat. lib, ii. cap. 3®. lib. v. cap. 10,
Sdfsomen. lib. viii. cap. 1.

256 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Seventhly, such laws as allow slaves to inform against
their heretical masters, and gain their freedom by coming
over to the Church. Leg. 40. De Hcereticis. et Leg. 4.
" Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur."
Eighthly, such laws as deny the children of heretical
parents their patrimony and inheritance-, except they re
turned to the Catholic Church. Leg. 7, 9, 40. De Hcereticis.
Leg. 7. " Ne sanctum baptisma. iteretur."
Ninthly, such laws as order the books of heretics to be
burned. Leg. 34, et 65. De Hcereticis.
This is the short account of those several penal laws,
which the Emperors made against heretics, from the time of
Constantine to Theodosius Junior, and Valentinian III.
which the learned reader may find at length under their
respective titles in both the Theodosian and Justinian Code.
It is sufficient 'ere to have'given an abstract of them, which
may serve to give some light to the laws of the Chureh, that
were made against them, which I now proceed to give a
more particular account of, as more properly relating to the
discipline of the Church.
Sect. 7. — How Heretics were treated by the Discipline of the Church.
First, They were anathematized and cast out of the Church.
And here we may observe in the first place, that heresy
was always accounted one of the principal crimes, that a
Christian could be guilty of, as being a sort of apostacy
from the faith, and a voluntary apostacy, which was a cir
cumstance, that added much to the heinousness of the
offence. Therefore Cyprian comparing the crimes of here
tics and schismatics with those, that lapsed into idolatry by
the violence of persecution, says,1 " this is a worse crime
than that, which the lapsers may seem to have committed,
who yet do a severe penance for their crime, and implore
the mercy of God by a long and plenary satisfaction. The
one seeks to the Church, and humbly intreats her favour;
the other resists the Church, and proclaims open war

Cypr. de Unit. Eccles. p. 117.

CHAP. \I.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 257
against her. The one has the excuse of necessity: the
other is detained in his crime by his own will only. He
that lapses, hurts himself alone : but he that endeavours to
make an heresy or schism, draws many others with him into
the same delusion. Here is only the loss of one soul: but
there a multitude is drawn into danger. The lapser is
sensible, that he has committed a fault, and therefore he
mourns and laments for it: but the other grows proud, and
swells in his crime, and pleasing himself in his errors he
divides the children from the mother, tempts and solicits
the sheep from the shepherd, and disturbs the sacraments
of God. And whereas a lapser sins but once, he sins every
day. Finally, a lapser may afterward become a martyr, and
obtain the promises of the kingdom ; but the other, being
cut of the Church, cannot attain to the rewards of the
Church, although he be slain for religion." This last argu
ment is often insisted on by Cyprian,1 and St. Austin and
Chrysostom and others, to deter men from engaging in
heresy and schism : and it implies, that heretics did volun
tarily cut themselves off from the communion of the Church,
and stood condemned of themselves, (as the Apostle words
it, and some of the Ancients understand it,) by a voluntary
excommunication, or separation of themselves from the
Church. Yet this did not hinder, but that notwithstanding
any such separation of themselves, the Church ordinarily
pronounced a more formal Anathema, or excommunication
against them. As the Council of Nice ends her creed with ,
an Anathema against all those, who opposed the doctrine
there delivered ; and the Council of Gangra closes every
canon with Anathema against the Eustathian heretics; and
there are innumerable instances of this kind in the Tomes of
the Councils, which it would be next to impertinent here
only to refer to, they are so well known to all, that have
ever looked into them.

1 Vid. Cypr. Ibid. p. 109, 113, 114. Ep. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 108 et 114.
Ep. lvii. et lx. ad Cornel. Aug. cont. Literas Petilian. lib.ii.cap.23.de
Bapt. lib. cap. xvii. Ep. 61 and 204. Chrys. Horn. xi. in Ephes.
VOL. VI. S

258 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI-

Sbct. 8.— Secondly, Debarred from entering the Church by some Canons,
though not by all:
To proceed then, when they were once formally excom
municated, so long as they continued impenitent, they were
by some rules of discipline debarred from the very lowest
privileges of Church-communion ; being forbidden to enter
the church, so much as to hear the sermon, or the Scrip
tures read in the service of the catechumens. The Council
of Laodicea has a canon to this purpose,1 " that heretics,.
so long as they continue in their heresy, shall not be per
mitted tb enter into the house of God." And it is probable,
this rule might be observed in the strict discipline of some
Churches. But it was no general rule: for 1 have had
occasion to shew before,2 out of the African and Spanish
Councils, and several passages of St. Chrysostom's Homi
lies, that liberty was granted to heretics, together with
Jews and heathens, to come into the Church and hear the
sermon preached and the Scriptures Tead, being these were
proper for their instruction. They thought it not impossible,
but that heretics might be converted in the Church, as
Polemon, a debauched young man, was converted in the
school of Xenocrates ; when coming drunk and with his
bacchanal wreaths about his head to hear the philosopher
read his lecture, which happened to be about temperance
and modesty, he was so affected therewith, that he not only
became his scholar and his convert, but his successor also
in the school of Plato* The historians tell us, that
Chrysostom by this means brought over many to acknow-

1 Con. Laodic. can. vi. 2 Book xiii. chap. i. sect. 2.
3 Vid. Valer. Maximum, lib. vi. cap. 9. See the story of Polemon in
Diogenes Laertius. lib.iv. Vit. Polemon. 263. See also Horat. lib.ii. sat.
iii. ver. 254. Quaej-o, faciasne quod olim,
Mutatus Polemon, ponas insignia morbi,
Fasxiolas, cubital, focalia :
Notus ut ille
Dicitur ex collo furtim carpsisse coronas,
Postquam est impransi correptus voce roagistri.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 259
ledge the divinity of Christ, whilst they had liberty to come
to hear his sermons.1 And the Fathers of the Council of
Valentia in Spain' give this as the reason,2 why they allowed
heathens and heretics to come and hear the bishop's preach
ing, and the reading of the Scriptures, because they had
found by experience, that many by these means had been
converted to the faith. So that the Church, which always
studied men's edification, and not their destruction, in pru
dence so ordered her discipline, as to encourage heretics to
frequent one part of her service, which she allowed to her
penitents and catechumens. And if heretics were at any
time denied it, there was some very particular and extraordi
nary reason for it.

Sect. 9. — Thirdly, No one to encourage Heretics and Schismatics by fre
quenting their Assemblies.
But there was not the same reason for allowing Catholics
to frequent the assemblies or conventicles of heretics and
schismatics ; because this, instead of converting them, had
rather been to have confirmed and hardened them in their
errors : and therefore the prohibition in this case was more
peremptory and universal, that no one should join with here
tics in any religious offices, and least of all in their conven
ticles, under pain of excommunication. To this purpose the
Apostolical Canons, " if any bishop, presbyter, or deacon
pray with heretics, let him be suspended : but if he suffer
them to officiate as clergymen,8 let him be^ deposed." And
again,* " if any clergyman or layman go into a synagogue
of Jews or heretics to pray, let him be excommunicated or
deposed." In like manner the Council of Laodieea,5 " none
of the Church are permitted to go to the cemeteries or mar-
tyries of heretics for prayer or worship, under pain of ex
communication for some time, till they repent and, confess
their error." And again,6 " it is not lawful to pray with

1 Sozom. lib. viii. cap. 2. * Con. Valentin, can. i
s Canon. Apost. xlv. * Ibid. can. lxv.
6 Con. Laodic, can. ix. " Ibid. can. xxxiii. s 2

260 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
heretics or schismatics." " The assembly of heretics," says
the Council of Carthage,1 " is not a Church, but a conven
ticle. Therefore with heretics no one shall either pray or
sing psalms.2" " If a Catholic," says the Comneil of Lerida,8
"offer his children to be baptised by heretics, his oblation
shall in no wise be received in the Church." But then this
Was to be understood, where a man might have baptism
from a Catholic, and he ch'ose rather to go to an heretic to
receive it, without any necessity to compel him so to do.
For otherwise, as has been observed before, out of several
places of St. Austin,* in case of extreme necessity, a man was
allowed to receive baptism from an heretic, rather than die
without it. This was not esteemed any breach of Catho
lic unity, neither was it the case, which the discipline of the
Church respected, when she forbad men to encourage here-
tics-by a voluntary joining with them, and receiving baptism
from them. Cyril of Jerusalem in this sense,5 bids his cate
chumen abhor especially the conventicles of impious here
tics, and have no communication with them. Chrysostom
compares heretics to those,6 that deface the king's coin :
though it be but in one point, they subvert the Gospel
thereby, and therefore Catholics ought to make a separa
tion from them. " No one," he says,7 " ought to maintain
any friendship with heretics. Since they maintain diff'erent
doctrines, men ought not to mingle or join in their assem
blies with them." And he adds, " that to divide the Church
by schism, is no less a crime than to fall into heresy, be
cause it exposes the Church to the ridicule of the Gentiles."
There he also urges, that famous saying of Cyprian,9 " the
blood of martyrdom cannot blot out this crime. For why

1 Con. Carth. iv. can. 71. Haereticorum coetus non ecclesia, sed conciliabu-
lum est. 2 Ibid. can. lxxii. Cum haereticis nee orandum necpsallendum.
s Con. llerdense. can. xiii. Catholicus, qui fitios suos in liaeresi baptizan-
dos obtultiit, oblatio illius in ecclesia nullatenus recipiatur. Vid. Hieron.
Dialog, cum Lucifer, cap. v. Sciens ab haereticis baptizatus, erroris veniam
non. meretur. * Aug. dc Bapt. lib. i. cap. ii. et lib. vi. c. v.
lib. vii. cap. 52. See these cited at large before, chap. i. sect. 4.
"„ ('ynl. Catech. iv. sect. 23. 'ESaiplrwc fiiau iravra ra. avvttpia tojv jrapa-
vofiuv a'tpETiKwv. 6Chrys. in Galat. i. p. 972.
' Chrys. Horn. ii. in. Ephes. p. 1102, et 1108. a Ibid. p. 1107.

OHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ZG}
a-rt thou a martyr? is it not for the glory of Christ? if
therefore thou layest down thy life for Christ, why dost
thou lay waste his Church, for which Christ laid down bis
own life?" Thus the Ancients dissuade men from encouraging
heretics and schismatics by resorting to their assemblies.
Sect. 10. — Fourthly, No one to eat or converse with Hereties, or Receive
their Presents, or retain their Writings, or make Marriages with them, &c.
There were many other marks of infamy and disgrace set
upon heretics by the laws of the Church joining with the
laws of the State, to give men a greater abhorrence of
them. No one was so much as to eat at a feast, or con
verse familiarly with them ; no one might receive their
Eulogice, or festival presents ; nor read or retain their wri
tings, but discover and burn them ; no one might make
marriages, or enter into any affinity with them, except they
would promise to return into the Catholic Church. As long
as they continued in heresy, their names were struclc out'of
the diptychs of the Church: and if they died in heresy, no
psalmody or other solemnity was used at their funeral ; -no
oblations were offered for them, nor any memorial ever after
made of them in the solemn service of the Church. But
because I have spoken of these things fully in the general
description of the Church's treatment of excommunicate
persons before,1 it may be sufficient only to have hinted
these several points in this place, because these punish
ments were not peculiar to heretics, but belonged to all in
general, that were under the censure of excommunication.
'Sbct. 11. — Fifthly, Heretics not allowed to be Evidence in any Ecclesias
tical Cause against a Catholic.
Yetjthere are two things of this kind, which it may not be
improper to speak a little more particularly of here. :1. That
by the laws of the Church, as well as the State, heretics
were rendered infamous, and their testimony was not to be
taken as evidence in any ecclesiastical cause whatsoever.
" Chap. ii. sect. 11. &c.

262 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
"The testimony of an heretic shall not be taken against a
bishop," say the Apostolical Canons.1 " In all j udgment,"
says the Council of Carthage,2 " examination shall be made
into the conversation and faith both of the accuser and de
fendant." In the African Code there are two canons to
this purpose, the one forbidding all excommunicate per
sons,8 under which heretics are comprehended, to be evi
dence against any man, during the time of their suspension.
And the other, expressly naming heretics among many
others,* whose testimony was not to be admitted in law : such
as slaves and freedmen against their own masters ; all mimics,
and actors, and such other infamous persons ; all Jews
and Heathens ; and all such, whose testimony was reproba
ted by the laws of the State ; except it were in some matter
of their own private concerns, in which case every man was
to have justice, and any one allowed to accuse another.
The same equitable distinction is made by the general
Council of Constantinople :5 a man might have a private
cause of complaint against a bishop ; as, that he was de
frauded in his property, or in any the like cases injured by
him : in which case his accusation was to be heard, without
considering at all the quality of the person or his religion.
For a bishop was to keep a good conscience, aud any man
that complained of being injured by him, was to have jus
tice done him, whatever religion he was of. But if the
crime was purely ecclesiastical, that was alleged against
him, then the personal qualities of the accusers were to
be examined ; and in the first place heretics are not allowed
to accuse orthodox bishops in causes ecclesiastical ; neither
any excommunicated persons, before they had first made
satisfaction for their own crimes. Gothofred indeed ques
tions whether there be any law in the Theodosian Code,
which thus unqualifies heretics from giving evidence : for
though there be a law of Valentinian's,6 twice repeated in

1 Canon. Apost. lxxv. * Con. Carthag. iv. can. 96.
3 Cod. African, can. 129. * Ibid. can. 130. 5 Con,
Constant, can. vi. « Cod. Theod. lib. xi. tit. 39. De Fide Testium.
leg. xi. Hi qui sanctam fidem prodiderint, et sacrum baptisma profanarint, a
consortio omnium segregati, sint a testimoniis alieni, &c. Idem repetitur
lib. xvi. tit. 7. De Apostatis. leg. iv.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 263
two distinct titles, declaring the proper qualifications of
witnesses ; yet he thinks in both places it is to be under
stood of apostates only, and not of heretics. But it is cer
tain, in Justinian's Code,1 this same law is applied to here
tics, rendering them incapable of giving evidence. And
Justinian made two laws of his own to confirm this sense Of
the ancient law. Iu one of which, he says,9 " that whereas
the judges were at some doubt, whether they should admit
the testimony of heretics in determining causes, he thus
resolved the matter for their instruction ; that where a Catho
lic was concerned in any dispute, neither heretic nOr Jew
should be allowed to give evidence, whether both parties
were Catholics, or only one: but in such causes, as Jews or
heretics had between themselves, the testimony of either
might indifferently be admitted, as fit witnesses for such
disputers : yet with an exception to all those, who were of
the mad sect of the Manichees, of which the Borboritse were
a part, and all who still followed the pagan superstition:
also all Samaritans, and Montanists, and Tascodrogitse and
Ophitse, who differed not much from the Samaritans in tbe
likeness of their guilt ; all such are prohibited universally
either to give testimony, or to prosecute any action at law/1
And he mentions and confirms this decree in one of his
Novels also.* But whether Justinian was the first, that

* Cod. Justin, lib. i. tit. vii, De Apostatis. leg. iii. Hi qui sanctam fidem
.prodiderunt, et sanctum baptisma haeretica superstitione profanarunt, a
consortio omnium segregati, a testimoniis alieni sint
3 Cod. Justin, tit. v. De Haereticis. lib. i. leg. 21. Quoni ammulti judices in
dirimendis litigiis nos interpellaverunt, nostro indigentes oraculo, ut eis re-
ferretur, quid de testibus haereticis statuendum sit, utrumque accipiautur
eorum testimonia, an respuantur : sancimus, contra orthodoxos quidem liti-
gantes, nemini hsretico, vel his etiam qui Judaicam superstitionem colunt,
esse in testimonio communionem: sive utraque pars orthodoxa sit, sive al
tera. Inter se autem haereticis vel judaeis, ubi litigandum existimaverint,
concedimus foedus permixtum, et dignos litigatoribus testes introducere :
«xceptis scilicet his, quos vel Manichiacus furor, cujus partem et Borbori-
tas esse manifestum est vel Pagana superstitio detinet.: Samaritis nihil omi- ,
nus, et qui illis non absimiles sunt, Montanistis, et Tascodrogitis, et Ophi-
tis ; quibus pro reatus similitudine omnis legitimus actus interdictus est, &c. ,
8 Novel, xlv. Heereticos perhibere testimonium prohibuimus, quando orlho-
4oxi inter alterutros litigant, &c.

264 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
made this law in the State against heretics, as Gothofred
would have it, or not, is not very material : it is certain
there was such a rule in the Church long before. For
St. Austin pleads it in behalf of one of his own presbyters,1
Secundinus of Getmanicia, a place in his diocese : "against
a catholic presbyter we neither can nor ought to admit the
accusations of hereties." And so he says again, in the case
of Cecilian, bishop of Carthage, whom the Donatists accused
of many crimes : " neither piety, nor charity, nor truth,3
will allow the testimony of those men against him, whom
we see to be out of the Church." And long before him,
Athanasius pleaded the same in his own behalf:8 when he
was accused for suffering Macarius, one of his presbyters, to
break the communion cup, he urged, that his accusers were
Meletians, who ought not to be credited, being schismatics
and enemies both to him and the Church. A great many
such rules are collected by Gratian,* out of the Epistles of
the ancient popes, which, though they be spurious, yet they
are founded upon this known practice of the Church, that
the testimony of an heretic was not to be received against a
Catholic in an ecclesiastical cause, which we have seen
fully evinced in the preceding allegations.

Sect. 12. — Sixthly, Heretics not allowed to succeed to any paternal
Inheritance.

The other thing here to be observed is, that by the laws
of the Church all men, or ecclesiastics at least, were obliged
to discourage heresy by denying obstinate defenders of it
such temporal benefits and privileges, as it was in their
power to deny them. Thus for instance the Council of Car-

1 Aug. Ep. 212. ad Pancarium. Haereticorum accusationes contra catholi
cum presbyterum admittere nee possumus nee debemus.
2 Ep. 1. ad Bonifac. Ipsa pietas, Veritas, charitas, non permittit contra Cae-
cilianum eorum hominum admittere testimonia, quos in ecclesia non videmus.
3 Athan. Apol. ad Constant, torn. i. p. 73J. * Gratian. Caus. iii.
Quaest. iv. et v.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 265
thage forbids the bishops and clergy to confer any donations
upon heretics, though they be of their kindred, either by
gift or will.1 And the civil law gave force to this decree,
by rendering all heretics intestate, that is, incapable either
of disposing of their own estates, or of receiving any be
nefit from the wills of others, as we have seen before, sect.
6. in speaking of the civil sanctions made against them.

Sect. 13. — Seventhly, No Heretic to have Promotion among the Clergy
after his return to the Church.
Another law of this kind was that, which forbad the ordina
tion of such as were either baptised in heresy, or fell away
after they had been baptised in catholic unity in the Church.
They were allowed to be reeeived as penitent laymen, but
not to be promoted to any ecclesiastical dignity in any
order of the clerical function. But this was a piece of
discipline, that might be insisted on, or dispensed with and
waived, according as Church governors in prudence thought
most for the benefit and advantage of the Church. And
therefore though the Council of Eliberis,2 and some others
insist upon this rule, yet the Council of Nice dispensed with
it in the case of the Novatians, and the African Fathers in
the ease of the Donatists, to encourage those schismatics
to return to the. unity of the Church. But I only just mention
this here, because I have more fully stated it on both
sides, upon other occasions in the preceding parts of this
work,8 to which the reader may have recourse.

Sect. 14. — Eighthly, No one to be ordained, who kept any in his
Family, that were not of the Catholic Faith.
And there I have also noted another rule, which relates

1 Con. Carth. iii. can. 13. Ut episcopi vel clerici, in eos qui catholici
Christiani non sunt, etiamsi consanguinei fuerint, nee per donationes, nee
per testamentum, rerum suarum aliquid conferant. Vid. Codj; African, can.
22. Et Con. Africanum vulgo dictum, can. 48.
2 Cbn. Eliber. can- li. a Book iv. chap. iii. sect. 12.
And Scholast. Hist, of Bapt. part ii. chap. iv.

266 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
to the matter now in hand; which was, that no one should
be ordained bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who had not first
made all the members of his family Catholic Christians.
This is a rule we find in the third Council of Carthage,1 where
St. Austin was present : and there is no question but that
it was chiefly designed against the Donatists, though it
equally affects all heretics, and Jews and Pagans, and all
who secretly by connivance gave any encouragement to
them : it being thought absurd to promote those to the go
vernment of the Church, who had not zeal or interest enough
to secure the practice of true religion within the walls of
their own families. And the rule tending directly to discou
rage heresy, I therefore mention it here as a branch of the
ancient discipline worthy our observation.
Sect. 15.— No one to bring his Cause before an heretical Judge, under
Pain of Excommunication.
Neither can I pass over another rule of the fourth Council
of Carthage, which forbids Catholics to bring any cause,9
whether just or unjust, before an heretical judge, under
pain of excommunication. This does not indeed deprive
heretical judges of their office, or render their decisions
null, when the State thinks fit to allow them, as it some
times did under Constantius and Valens, and other heretical
Emperors. For the Church has no power in this case,
which belongs to the civil, and not the ecclesiastical power,
as has been shewn before.3 But the Church had power to
lay an injunction upon all her members, not to bring their
causes before an heretical judge, by a just analogy to that
rule of the Apostle, not to go to law before the unbelievers.
And this was one way to discountenance heresy in men of
the highest station : and for this reason we may suppose the

1 Con. Carth. iii. can. 18. — Ut episcopi, presbyteri, et diaconi non ordi-
nentur, priusquam omn6s, qui sunt in domo eorum Christianos catholicos
feeerint. 2 Con. Carth. iv. can. 87. Catholicus, qui
¦eausam suam, sive justam sive injustam, ad judicium alterius fidei judicis
provocat, exoommunicetur. 3 Chap. ii. sect. 5.

CHAP. Vll] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 267
Church enjoined it, to give a check to heretics, by obliging
Catholics to end their controversies among themselves and
have no communication with heretics or unbelievers.

Sect. 16. — AVhat Term of Penance imposed upon relenting Heretics.
We have hitherto considered the punishments laid upon
heretics continuing in their obstinacy and perverseness, and
bidding defiance to the communion of the Church. We are
now to view the Church's discipline and behaviour toward
them, when they shewed any disposition to relent and return
to, the unity of the faith. Now heresy being reckoned among
the greatest of crimes, a proportionable term of penance
was laid upon it. The Council of Eliberis1 appoints teri
years penance for such as went over from the Catholic
Church to any heresy, if ever they returned and made con
fession of their crime, before they should be admitted to
communion. Only an exception is made in the case of
infants, because their fault was not their own, but their
parents' : therefore they are ordered to be received without
any delay. The Council ofRome, under Felix,2 sets a more
particular mark upon bishops, presbyters, and deacons, who
suffered themselves to be rebaptised by heretics, because
this was in effect to deny their Christianity, and own that
they were pagans. Such are denied communion even among
the catechumens all their lives, and only allowed lay-com
munion at the hour of death. Others are enjoined the
same penance,8 as the Council of Nice puts upon lapsers,
that is, twelve years, in the several stations of penitents,
unless they had the plea of necessity or fear, or danger to

1 Con. Eliber. can. xxii. Si quis de catholica ecclesia ad haeresim tran-
situm fecerit, rursusque ad ecclesiam recurrent — decern annis agat poeniten
tiam, cui post decern annos praestari communio debet. Si vero infantes fue
rint transducti, quia non suo vitio peccaverint, incunctanter recipi debent.
2 Con. Rom. an. 487. can. ii. Ad exitus sui diem in Pcenitentia (sui resi-
piscuntjacereconveniet: nee orationi non modo fidelium, sed nee catechu^
menorum omnimodis interesse, quibus communio laica tantum in morte red4
denda est. 3 Ibid can. iii.

268 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BQOK XVI.
excuse them. But if they were children,1 their ignorance
and immaturity was a more reasonable plea to shorten their
penance, and restore them more speedily to communion.
The Council of Agde2 contracted this term of penance uni
versally for all such lapsers into heresy, reducing it to the
terms of three years only. For though the ancient canons
imposed a longer penance, yet they saw good reason to
relax this severity, and make the conditions of reconciliation
a little easier. The Council of Epone repeats and confirms
this decree,8 with a little various reading- of one clause, which
reduces the term of penance to two years only.

Sect. 17. — How this varied according to the Age and State and Con
dition of several Sorts of Heretics.
It appears from some of the forementioned canons, that
a great difference was made in the term of penance imposed
upon heretics, w-ith Tespect to the age of the offenders.
Children were more favourably dealt with, by reason of
their ignorance and want of mature judgment, than adult
persons. And we may observe the same difference made in
many other cases of the like nature. They, who were bap
tised and educated in the Catholic faith, were more severely
treated, if after that they deserted the Church, and fell into
heresy, and especially such heresies as required them to
take a new baptism. The foresaid canons chiefly respect
deserters ; and particularly that of Felix in the Roman
Council, such as were rebaptised in heresy: concerning
which both the civil and ecclesiastical laws speak with g-reat

1 Con. Rom. an. 487. can. 4. Pueris autem, quibus ignorantia suffragatur
tetatis, aliquandiu sub mantis impositione detentis, reddenda communio
est: Nee eorum expectanda pcenitentia, quos excipit a coercitione censura.
2 Con. Agathen. can. lx. Lapsis, id est, qui in catholica fide baptizati sunt,
si praevaricatione damnabili post in haeresim transierint, grandem redeundi
difficultatem sanxit antiquitas. Quibus nos, annorum multitudine breviatS
poenitentiam biennii imponimus, ut praescripto biennio, tertio sine relaxa
tion jejunent, et ecclesiam studeant frequentare, &c.
3Con. Epaunen.-can. 29. Praescripto biennio tertifi die sine dilatione je-
¦junent, &c.

CHAP, VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 260
indignation and severity ; the one confiscating the goods of
all rebaptisers, and banishing their persons ; and the other
requiring the rebaptised to go through a long course of
penance in order to their re-admission to the communion of
the Church again ; of which the reader may find a more
ample account in a former book,1 under the proper title of re-
baptisation. Whereas they, that were born and bred and
baptised originally among heretics, had /more favourable
allowances made them, with respect to their difficult circum
stances, and great prejudices naturally arising thence.
This is expressly said by St. Austin,2 in one of his Epistles
to a Donatist bishop : " The Church has one way of treat
ing those, who desert her, if ever they repent ; and another
way of treating those, who vyere never before in her bosom,
till they come to beg her peace : she humbles the former
by a severer discipline, but receives the latter more gently,
loving both, and ministering to the cure of both with the
charity and affection of a mother." So again, in his Book
of One Baptism,3 against Petalian, " We observe this dis
tinction, to humble those, who were once in the Catholic
Church, and afterward desert it, with a severer penance,
than those, who were never in it. Neither do we admit
them into the clergy, whether they were rebaptised by them,
or run over to them, or were clergymen or laymen among
them." This distinction was particularly observed by the
African synod, with relation to such persons, as were baptised
in their infancy among the Donatists : in the Council of
Carthage, Anno 397, which is inserted into the African Code,*
a proposal was made, that such, as had been baptised among

1 Book xii. chap. v. sect. 7.
8 Aug. Ep. xlviii. ad Vincentium. p. 73. Aliter tractat illos, qui eam de-
serunt, si hoc ipsum pcenitendo corrigant ; aliter illos qui in ea nondum fue-
runt, et tunc primum ejus pacem accipiunt; illos amplius humilitando, istos
lenius suscipiendo, utrosque diligendo, utrisque sanaudis materna eharitate
serviendo. - s Aug. de Unico Bapt. cap. xii. Nee illud
sine distinctione praeterimus, ut humitiorem agant poenitentiam qui jam
fideles ecclesiam catholicam deseruerunt, quam qui in ilia nondum fuerunt.
Nee ad clericatum admittuntur, sive abJHaereticis rebaptizati sint, sive prius
suscepti ad illos redierint, sive apud illos clerici vel laici fuerint.
4 Cod. African, can. xlviii.

270 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
the Donatists, in their infancy, by their parents' fault, with
out their own knowledge and consent, should upon their
return to the Church be allowed the privilege of ordination :
and in the next Council the proposal was accepted,1
and a decree passed accordingly in favour of them. The
Council of Nice granted the same indulgence to the,
Novatian clergy ;2 but we rarely find any of those, who de
serted the Church, in which they had been baptised, allow
ed this privilege ; the laws being more peremptory against
them, to debar them from all clerical dignity, and only re
ceive them as. private Christians to lay communion.
Sect. 18. — Heresiarchs more severely treated than their Followers.
Yet considerations of prudence sometimes obliged the
Church to dispense with those laws also, and receive even
deserters, in some cases, to clerical dignity again ; of which
I have given some instances in a former book.3 But then
she always set a mark of infamy upon heresiarchs, or first
founders of heresy, making a distinction between them and
those, that followed them ; allowing the one sometimes to
continue in the clerical function upon their repentance, but
commonly degrading the other without hopes of restitution.
St. Austin takes notice of this difference in the case of the
Donatists : he says,* " the Church of Afric observed this
moderation from the beginning toward them, according to
the decree made by those in the Roman Church, who were
appointed to judge and decide the dispute between Cecilian,
and the party of Donatus : they condemned only Donatus,
who was proved to be the author of the schism ; but or
dered the rest to be received in their clerical honours upon

1 Cod. African, ean. lviii. 2 Con. Nie. can. viii.
3 Book iv. chap. vii. sect. 7 and 8. * Aug. Ep. 60. ad
Bonifac. p. 87. Hoc erga istos ab initio servavit Africa Catholica, ex
episcoporum sententia qui in Ecclesia Roniana inter Cecilianum et partem
•Doriati judicaverunt, damnatoque uno quodam Donato, qui author schismatis
fuisse manifestatus est, caeteros correctos, etiamsi extra ecclesiam ordinati
essent, in suis honoribus suscipiendos esse censuerunt.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 271
their repentance, although they were ordained out of the
Catholic Church."
Sect. 19. — And voluntary Deserters more severely, than they, who com
plied only out of Fear.
Another distinction was made, as in the case of lapsers
into idolatry, between such heretics, as voluntarily deserted
the Church out of choice, and those, who complied with he
retical errors only by force and compulsion, being terrified
into them by the violence of some persecution. In this
latter ease, bishops were allowed to moderate their penance,
as the circumstances of the matter seemed to require. As
appears from the direction,1 given by Pope Leo to the bishop
of Aquileia, concerning the penance of such as were com
pelled by fear and violence offered to them by certain here
tics, to submit to a second baptism : they were to be put
under penance, he says, for some time, but a moderation
was to be used in the term of it, according to the bishop's
discretion. Sect. 20. — A Difference made between such Heretics, as retained the
Form of Baptism, and such, as rejected or corrupted it.
Another difference was made between such heretics, as
retained the due form of baptism, and those, who wholly re
jected it, or corrupted it in any essential part. The former
were to be received only by imposition of hands, confessing
their error, as having received a true baptism, though out of
the Church before ; but the others were to be received only
as heathens, having never been truly baptised, and there
fore were obliged to receive a new baptism to make them
members of the Church. Of which, because I have given a
full account elsewhere,3 I need say no more in this place .

1 Leo ep. 77. ad Nicetam. cap. vi. Qui ad iterandum baptismum vel
metu coacti sunt, vel terrore traducti, his ea custodienda est moderatio, quS
insocietatem nostram n6n nisi per pcenitentiae remedium et per impositionem
episcopalis mands communionis recipiant unitatem, temporis poenitudinis
habita moderatione, tuo constituenda judicio, &c. 2 Book xi.
chap. 2, and 3. And Scholast. Hist, of Bapt. part i. chap. i. sect. 20, &c.

272 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Sect. 21.— No one to be reputed a formal Heretic, before he contuma-
ciously resisted the Admonition of the Church.
Finally, they made some distinction between such here
tics, as contumaciously resisted the admonitions of the
Church, and such as never had any admonition given them,
or amended quietly upon the first admonition. Men might
entertain very dangerous errors, but till the Church had
given them a first and second admonition, according to the
Apostle's rule, they were not reputed formal heretics, nor
treated as such, till they joined contumacy to their error.
St. Austin puts the case thus between two men,1 who are
equally involved in the error of Photinianism, denying the
divinity of Christ ; but the one is baptised in heresy, out of
the communion of the Catholic Church ; the other is bap
tised in the Catholic' Church, having the same error, .vhich
he believes to be the Catholic faith : " I do not yet call this
man an heretic, unless, when the doctrine of the Catholic
faith is declared to him, he chuses rather to resist it, and hold
to his former opinion: before he does this, he, that is bap
tised out of the Church, is plainly the worse of the two.
But that man is worse than both the former, who knowing
this opinion, which he holds, only to be taught among he
retics divided from the Church, yet for some secular end and
advantage chuses to be baptised in the Church, and conti
nue in it after baptism : this man is not only to be accounted
a' separatist, but so much the more wicked one, for adding
heresy to his error, and dissimulation and hypocrisy to the
division of the faith." In another place, he says,2 " they

1 Aug. de Bapt. lib. iv. cap. 16. Constituamus duos aliquos isto modo,
unum eorum, verbi gratia, id sentire de Christo quod Photinus opinatus est
et in ejus haeresi baptizari extra ecclesiae catholica? communionem : alium
vero hoc idem sentire, sed in catholica baptizari, existimantem istam esse
catholicam fidem. Istum nondum haereticum dico, nisi manifestata sibi
doctrina catholicae fidei resistere maluerit, et illud quod tenebat elegerit ;
quod antequam fiat, manifestum est ilium qui foris baptizatus est esse pe-
jorem, &c. 2 De Civ. Dei. lib. xviii. cap. 51. Qui in
ecclesia Christi morbi dum aliquid pravumque sapiunt, si correpti ut sanum

CHAP. VI.} CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 273
ar& properly heretics, who, when they are reproved for their
unsound opinions, contumaciously resist ; and instead of
correcting their pernicious and damnable doctrines, per
sist in the defence of them, and leave the Church, and be
come her enemies. But they, who defend not their opinion,
though false and perverse,1 with any pertinacious animosity,
especially if they were not the first broachers of it, but re
ceived it from the seduction of their parents, and were care
ful in their inquiries after truth, being ready to embrace it
when they found it ; they were not to be reckoned among
heretics." And with much stronger reason, we have heard
him say before,3 " that a man, who, in extreme necessity,
received baptism from heretics, when he could not have a
catholic to administer it to him, was in no fault, because
his mind and will was still united to the Catholic Church.
From all which it is easy to discern, how great a difference
they made in the degrees of heresy and its guilt, and how
the discipline of the Church was managed ih a great mea
sure according to these distinctions.
Sect. 22.— The like Distinctions observed in inflicting the Censures of
the Church upon Schismatics, according to the different Nature and va
rious Degrees of their Schism.
I have already shewn,3 that a like discrimination was
made between schismatics of different kinds, and that the
censures of the Church were inflicted on them only in pro
portion to the quality of their offence, observing the differ
ent nature and various degrees of their separation or- schism.
Some only absented from Church, for a short time, suppose
two or three Lord's days successively, without any justi
fiable reason for it : and it was thought sufficient to correct
such by a moderate punishment of as many weeks suspen-

rectumque sapiant, resistunt contumaciter; suaque pestifera et mortifera dog
mata emendare nolunt, sed defenfcare persistunt, hairetici fiunt et foras exe-
untes, habentur in exercentibus inimicis.
1 Ep. 162. p. 277. See this cited before, chap. i. sect. 16.
2 Aug. de Bapt. lib. i. cap. 2. lib. vi. cap 5. lib. vii. cap. 52. See before
chap. i. sect. 4. s Book xvi. chap. i. sect. 5.
VOL. VI. T

274 THE AN1IQUIT1ES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
sion. Others attended some part of the service, suppose
the sermon, and the psalmody, and the first prayers for the
catechumens ; but then withdrew, as if they had been
penitents, when the service of the faithful or the communion
office came on, and the eucharist was to be offered and re
ceived by all, that were not for some fault excluded from it:
and these, as greater criminals, were denied the privilege of
making any oblations, and excluded for some time from all
other holy offices of the Church. A third sort of separa
tists, which are most properly called schismatics, were such
as withdrew totally and universally from the communion of
the Church ; pretending that her communion was polluted
and profane by the mixture of sinners ; or finding out other
such reasons to charge her with sinful terms of commu
nion, and justify their own separation by. many the like pre
tences, of which the history of the Novatians and Donatists
affords many instances. Now, against these the Church
commonly proceeded more severely, using the highest cen
sure of excommunication or anathema, as against more pro
fessed and formal schismatics, and destroyers of that invio
lable unity and peace, which ought to be most sacredly
preserved in the body of Christ. Of all which schismatics
and their punishments, because I have spoken particularly
before in discoursing of the unity of the Church, I need say
no more in this place, but proceed to another crime, that of
sacrilege, which comes next in order to be considered.
Sect. 23.— Of Sacrilege, particularly of diverting Things appropriated
to sacred Uses, to other Purposes.
The Roman casuists are wont to call many things sacri
lege,1 which the Ancients reckoned no crimes at all: as the
laying taxes or tribute upon ecclesiastics by the civil power,
without the consent of the pope, for which secular princes
are excommunicated by the famous bull in " Ccend Domini,"
as they call it: and the bringing ecclesiastical persons for
any crime before the secular tribunals. Some other things

o"

1 Vid. Lcssim de Jure. lib. ii. cap. 45. Dubitat. 3, and 4.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH, S75,
they brand with the odious name of sacrilege, which many
of the Ancients reckoned to be virtues, and instances of zeal
and piety towards God: as the removing of images out of
all places of divine worship ; for which the Council ofFli-
beris, and Epiphanius, and many others, were so remark
able in ancient history, who yet, if we were to speak in the
style and language of these modern casuists, were to be
reckoned guilty of the horrid sin of sacrilege. Since there
fore the matter stood thus, we are not to expect to find any
punishments in the penitential discipline of the ancient
Church, allotted to such mere pretended crimes and imao-i-
nary vices. But against real sacrilege, none could be more
zealous than the Ancients. Particularly against diverting
any thing to private use, which was given to the public ser
vice of the Church. " If any one," say the apostolical
canons,1 " either of the clergy or laity take wax or oil out
of the_ Church, let him be cast out of communion, and
make restitution with the addition of a fifth part." And
again,2 " Let no one divert to his own use any of the sacred
utensils of gold, or silver, or linen ; for it is a flagitious
thing : and if any one be apprehended so doing, let him be
excommunicated," So likewise in the fourth Council of
Carthage,3 " let those, who deny the Church such oblations
as are given by the dead, or give them not without difficulty,
be excommunicated as murderers of the poor." And the
second Council of Vaison,4 " They, who detain the oblations
and refuse to give them to the Church, are to be cast out
of the Church as infidels ; for such a provocation of God
is a denying of the faith: both the faithful, who are gone
out of the body, are defrauded of the plenitude of their
1 Canon. Apost. 72. 2 Ibid. can. 73. 3 Con,
Carth. iv. can. 95. Qui oblationes defunctorum aut negant ecclesiis, aut
cum difficultate reddunt, tanquam egentium necatores, exoommunicentur.
* Con. Vasense. ii. can. 4. Qui oblationes defunctorum retinent, et eccle
siis tradere demorantur, ut infideies sunt ab ecolesiS p.bjiciendi : quia usque
ad inanitionem fidei pervenire certum est hanG pietatis divina exacerbationem :
quia et fideles de corpore recedentes fraudantur votorum suorum plenitu
dine, et pauperes consolatu, alimoniae et necessaria substentatione fraudan
tur. Hi enim tales quasi egentium necatores, nee credentes judicium Dei
habendi sunt. Unde et quidam patrum ait, amico quidpiam rapere, furtunj
est ; ecclesiam verd fraudare, sacrilegium. Hieron. Ep. ii. ad Nepotiaq,
T 2

276 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
vows, and the poor also of the comfort of their food and
necessary subsistence. Such are to be esteemed murderers
of the poor, and infidels with respect to the judgment of
God." Whence one of the Fathers says, " To take from a
friend, is theft ; but to defraud the Church, is sacrilege."
This is cited from St. Jerom. And St. Ambrose goes a lit
tle further, and says,1 " They, who give their own estates to
the Church, and then in a fickle humour retract, and revoke
them again, like Ananias and Sapphira, lose the reward both
of their first and second action : the first act is void of judg
ment, and the second is downright sacrilege." Therefore
whether a man retracted what he himself had given to the
Church, or detained'what was given by others, or robbed
her of what she was actually possessed of, it was all the
same species of sacrilege, and the canons equally punish
them all with the same sentence of excommunication f re
ducing clergymen, when found guilty of this crime, to the
communion of strangers, which was a punishment peculiar
to them, of which more hereafter. I have already shewn
in a former Book,3 that for this reason bishops, who were
intrusted with the goods and revenues of the Church, were
not allowed to alienate any part of them, except it were in
great necessity, to relieve the poor, or redeem captives ; in
which case, St. Ambrose himself, and many others, disposed
of the plate of the altar, and the vessels and utensils be
longing to the Church ; thinking it better , that the inani
mate temples of God should want their ornaments, than that
his living temples should perish for want of relief. This
was not sacrilege in the eye of the law, either ecclesiasti
cal or civil, but an act of mercy allowed by both : for the
laws against sacrilege, next to the honour of God, had al-

1 Ambros. de Pcenitent. lib. ii. cap. 9. Sunt, qui opes suas tumultuario
mentis impulsu, non judicio perpetuo, ubi ecclesiae contulerunt, postea revo-
candas putaverunt. Quibis nee prima merces rata est. nee secunda : quia
nee prima judicium habuit et secunda habuit sacrilegium.
2 Vid. Con. Agath. can. 4, 5, 6. Con. Turon. ii. can. 24. Con. Arelat. ii.
can- 28- 3 Book v. chap. vi. sect. 6 and 7.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 277
ways a view to the necessities of the poor: and there
fore as this practice tended to relieve them in great ex
igencies, it was just the reverse of that inhuman sacri
lege, which the Ancients called murdering the poor, against
which so many severe laws were made to abolish and cor
rect it.

Sect. 24. — Of Sacrilege committed in robbing of Graves.
Another great crime of near a-kin to the former, which
was sometimes condemned and punished under the name of
sacrilege, was robbing of graves, or defacing and spoiling
the monuments of the dead. These were always esteemed
a sort of sacred repositories, and inviolable sanctuaries even
by the very heathen, as appears from the Edict of Julian,1
and what Gothofred2 has collected at large out of the old
laws and heath en .writers upon the subject. And the vio
lation of them was always esteemed a piacular crime, and
sometimes punished with death. The imperial laws made
it capital, and therefore when the Christian Emperors at
Easter granted their indulgence or pardon to criminals
in prison,3 they still excepted robbers of graves among
those other flagitious criminals, which were to have no be-
nefit from their indulgence, as has been shewn before,* in
speaking of those called Atrocia Crimina, great and capi
tal crimes. That, which tempted men to commit this
wickedness, was, that often riches and jewels were buried
with the dead, and fine marble pillars and statutes, orna
ments and monuments were erected over their graves ;
all which became spoil and plunder to such as were
impiously and sacrilegiously disposed to invade them.
Now as the imperial laws prosecuted such criminals
with suitable punishments; fines, tortures, transporta
tion, and death: so the ecclesiastical laws pursued them
with spiritual penalties, agreeable to her spiritual regimen

1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 17. De Sepulchris Violatis. leg. v.
* Gothofr. in leg. ii. ibid. 3 Cod. Theod. de Indulgentiis Cri-
minum. lib. ix. tit. 38. leg. iii. iv. vii. viii. Valentin. Novel, v. de Sepulchr.
*' Chap. iv. sect. 2.

2?S THE ANTIQUITIES Ot THE [BOOK XVI.
and jurisdiction. Gregory Nyssen says,1 " The holy fathers
teach us to place the violation of burial places among those
sins, which are to be expiated by public penance." But he
distinguishes two degrees of this crime, the one punishable
by eeclesiastical censure, the other not so. For if any one
took the stones or materials, which are usually cast up be
fore the burial places of the dead, and applied them to some
other useful purpose, without exposing the corps to the air
or light, or offering any abuse or injury to it : though this
Was not commendable or allowable ; for indeed the civil
laws absolutely forbad it,2 as was said before; yet custom
however exempted this from any public punishment in the
Church, because there was some benefit in it by an applica
tion of the materials to a more useful purpose ; and as
Gothofred also observes,3 " there was something of seeming
zeal in it, to demolish the heathen altars and images, which
Were often erected at the graves of pagans." But then, as
Gregory adds, there was another degree of this crime,
which was more horrible, when men raked into the ashes of.
the dead, and disturbed their bones, in pursuit of treasure,
cloths or other ornaments, that might be buried with
them : and this, he says, was punished with the same term
of penance as simple fornication, that is, nine years in the
several stations of repentance. The fourth Council of
Toledo makes it a double punishment for any clergyman
to be guilty of this crime :* " if any clerk is apprehended
demolishing sepulchres, for as much as this is a crime of
sacrilege punishable with death by the public laws, he
ought by the canons to be deposed from his orders, and
after that do three years penance for such his transgression."
The reader that pleases may see elegant invectives against
this crime in Sidonius Apollinaris6 and St. Chrysostom,6
1 Nyss. Ep. Canon, ad Letoium. can. vi. et. vii. 2 Cod. Theod.
lib. ix. tit. 17. de Sepulchris Violatis. leg. i, ii, iii.
'»- Gothofr. in leg. v. ibid. p. 145. * Con. Tolet. iv. can. 45. Si
quis clericus in demoliendis sepulchris fuerit deprehensus, quia facinus hoc
pro sacrilegio legibus publicis sanguine vindicatur: oportet canonibus in
tali scelere, proditum, a clericatus ordine submoveri, et poenilentire triennio
¦rieputari. ° S'tdon' lib. iii. Ep. xii. 6 Chrys. Horn. xxxv.
in 1 Cor. p. 6.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 279
who justly represent it, as one of the most unnatural and
inhuman barbarities that can be offered to the nature of
man, because the dead are altogether innocent and passive,
and in a condition to excite pity and compassion only ;
being destitute and without ability to resist or right' them
selves against invaders.
Sect. 25.— The Sacrilege of the ancient Traditores, who delivered up their
Bibles and holy Utensils to the Heathen to be burnt.
Another sort of men, who were anciently accused and
condemned as sacrilegious persons, were those, whom they
commonly called Traditores, for delivering up their Bibles,
and other sacred utensils of the Church to the heathen to
be burnt, in the time of the Diocletian persecution. The
first Council of Aries,1 held immediately after the persecu
tion, makes it deposition from his order for any clergyman,
who could be convicted by the public acts of this crime,
either of betraying the Scriptures, or any of the holy vessels,
or the names of his brethren to the persecutors. The
Donatists frequently, but falsely, objected this crime to
Cecilian, bishop of Carthage, and those, that ordained him,
that they were Traditores : upon which St. Austin tells
them,3 that if they could evidently make good the charge,
the Catholics would not scruple to anathematise them after
death. But the truth of the matter was, these very objec
tors were Traditores themselves, though they had the impu
dence to absolve one another, while they threw the charge
upon innocent men, as Optatus3 and St. Austin* shew out
of the Acts of their own Council of Cirta, where they acted
, this comedy, which stood as a witness against them.

' ' Con. Arelat. i. can. 13. De his, qui Scripturas Sanctas tradidisse dicun
tur, vel vasa dominica, vel nomina fratrum suorum, placuit nobis, ut quicun-
que eorum in actis publicis fuerit detectus, non verbis nudis, ab ordine cleri
amoveatur. 2 Aug. Ep. 1. ad Bonifac. Ep. 152. ad Donatistas.
3 Optat. lib. i. p. 39. * Aug. cont. Crescon. lib. iii. cap. 27, &c.

2S0 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Sect. 26.— The Sacrilege of profaning the Sacraments, and Churches, and
Altars, and the Holy Scriptures, &c.
Neither was this the only sacrilege the Donatists were
guilty of, but they and their accomplices stand charged with
many others. Optatus objects to them their breaking and
burning the communion tables,1 which they found in the
catholic churches. And their profaning the holy sacrament
in a most vile manner, of which he gives a most remarkable
instance : some of the Donatist bishops in their mad zeal
ordered the eucharist, which they found in the catholic
churches, to be thrown to the dogs, but not- without an im
mediate sign of divine vengeance upon them : for the dogs,
instead of devouring the elements, fell upon their masters,
as if they had never known them, and tore them to pieces,
as robbers, and profaners of the holy body of Christ : which
makes Optatus put them in mind of that admonition of our
Saviour,2 " Give not that, which is holy unto the dogs, nei
ther cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample
them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." It
was a like profanation of the holy eucharist, which
Cornelius charges upon Novatian,3 when he obliged his par-
tizans, instead of saying Amen, at the reception of it, to
swear by the body and blood of Christ, that they would
never desert his party, nor return to Cornelius. It was also
reckoned a piece of sacrilege to give the catholic churches
to heretics, in which St. Ambrose stoutly opposed the
younger Valentinian, when he sent him an order to deliver up
one of the churches of Milan to the Arians : he returned him
this courageous answer: " those things,* which are God's, .
are not subject to the emperor's power. If my patrimony-
is demanded, you may invade it ; if my body, I will offer it
of my own accord. I will not fly to the altar and supplicate
for life, but more joyfully sacrifice my life for the altar."
There are some instances of men turning Churches into5
1 Optat. lib. vi. p. 91 et 95. 2 Lib. ii. p. 55.
5 Cornel. Ep. ad Fabium. ap. Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 43.
' Ambros. Ep. xxxiii. ;id Marcellin. de Tradendis Basilicis.
• Vid. Baron, an. b'r>. p. 575. Dc Charibcrto Rege.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 2$1
stables : but as these were very abominable, so there were
but few, that fell into such prodigious profanations. We
may reckon also all sorts of idolatry, and divination, and
magic, and the abuse of Scriptures, for lots and charms and
amulets among- the species of sacrilege, as some of the
ancient Councils do:1 but I have spoken fully of these
under former heads, and therefore there is no occasion here
to repeat them. I only add, that to molest or hinder a
clergyman in the performance of his proper office by avo
cation to other business, and laying him under a necessity
of folio wing other employments, inconsistent with the duties
of his proper station and function, is, in the civil law, called
sacrilege. Constantine in his first settlement of religion
made a law,2 " that they, who ministered in the service of
God, should be excused from all personal duties in the
state ; that the sacrilegious envy of some, who gave them
disturbance, might not withdraw them from the service^ of
religion." And agreeable to the tenor of this law, we find
a rule of the Church as ancient as St. Cyprian, that no one
should employ a clergyman in the business of a secular trust,3
to be a guardian or curator of his worldly concerns by his
last will and testament, under the penalty of excommunica
tion, or having his name blotted out of the Diptychs of the
Church after death.
There are abundance of laws in the Theodosian Code,
beside that of Constantine, settling great privileges, exemp
tions, and immunities upon the clergy, in regard to their
office ; as also upon churches, in regard to the respect and
veneration, that is due to them, as the houses of God and
places of divine worship : upon which account they were
made sanctuaries or places of refuge for men in certain' pro
per cases, whence they might not be taken by violence,
without the imputation of a sort of sacrilege fixed on the in-

1 Con. Toletan. iv. can. 28. ! Cod. Theod. lib. xvi.tit. ii. de
Episc. et Cler. leg. ii. Qui divino cultui ministeria religionis impendunt, id
est, hi qui clerlci appellantur, ab omnibus omnino mulieribus excusentur : ne
sacrilego livore quorundam a divinis obsequiis avocentur. Vid. leg. vii. ibid.
3 Cypr. Ep. lxvi. al. i. ad Cler. Furnitan. p. 3.

282 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
vaders. But of all these privileges and immunities, I have
had occasion to discourse at large before,1 in speaking of
Churches and the clergy, and therefore need not here re
peat them ; but only mention a law of Honorius,2 which
expressly charges the crime of sacrilege upon all such, as
offered any injury or affront to ministers officiating in the
Church, or to the service itself, or to the place : ordering
all such criminals to be notified by public officers, not wai
ting for the bishop's accusation of them, to the governor of
the province, who was to proceed against them, and con
demn them with the punishment of capital offenders.
Sect. 27.— The Sacrilege of depriving Men of the Use of the Scripture,
and the Word of God, and the Sacraments, particularly of the Cup in the
Lord's Supper.
There is one species of sacrilege more, which the casuists
of the Romish Church for a good reason never mention : that
is, the grand sacrilege of their own Church in depriving men
of the use of the Holy Scriptures, and the cup in the Lord's
supper, both which, with -unparalleled magisterial authority,
are sacrilegiously and injuriously taken from them. That
the Ancients reckoned it the sin of sacrilege to divide the
communion without reason, and deny men the use of the
cup, needs no other proof at present, but the testimony of
Gelasius, one of their own popes, which is still extant in
their canon law,3 in the words of the following decree:
" We understand there are some, who receive only a por-

1 Book. v. chap. iii. book. viii. chap. xi. 2 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi.
tit. ii. de Episc. leg. 31. Si quis in hoc genus sacrilegii proruperit, in ec-
elesias catholicas irruens, sacerdotibus et ministris, vel ipsi cultui, locoque
aliquid importet injuriae  provincial moderator, sacerdotum et catholics
ecclesia? ministrorum, loci quoque ipsius, et divini cultfis injuriam, capital!
in convictos sive confessos reos sententia noverit vindieandum. Necexpec-
tet.ut episcopus injuriae propria? ultionem deposcat, cui sanctitas ignoscendi
solum gloriam dereliquit, &c. 3 Gelas. ap. Gratian. De Consecrat.
dist. ii. cap. 12. Comperimus autem, quod quidam sumpta tantummodo
corporis sacri portione, a calice sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui proculdubio
(quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi) autintegrasacramenta
percipiant, aut ab intcgris arceantur ; quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysteru
sine gi-andi sacrilegio non potest provenire.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 28,1
tion of the holy body, and abstain from the cup of the holy
blood. Who doubtless, beingbound by some vain super
stition, ought either to receive the whole sacrament, or
to be excluded from the whole: because one and the
same mystery cannot without grand sacrilege be divided."
Such sacrilegious dividers of the communion, are also con
demned by Pope Leo,1 and ordered to be excommunicated.
And they, who take the eucharist, and use it for any other
end besides communicating, are censured by the first Coun
cil of Toledo, can. xiv. and that of Caesaraugusta, can. iii.
as sacrilegious also, deserving to be banished the Church
with Anathema or excommunication. But of these, I have
discoursed more at large in a former book, see Book xv.
chap. iv. sect. 13. and chap. v. sect. 1. against communica
ting in one kind.
There were many heretics in the ancient Church, who
were guilty of sacrilege in relation to the other sacrament
of baptism. Some rejected it wholly, others corrupted it in
the material part, and others in the form of words necessary
to the administration : of all which the reader may find a
large account in a former book,2 which particularly handles
the subject of baptism. But there were none, that ever pre
sumed sacrilegiously to deny Christians their proper birth
right, which is to read the Scriptures. Some heretics cor
rupted them ; and others rejected such parcels of them, as
they thought most opposite to their peculiar notions : but
none, who allowed them to be the inspired writings and
oracles of the Holy Ghost, ever denied the people liberty to
search and examine them for their own instruction. This is
a piece of sacrilege peculiar to these later ages, which the
Ancients knew nothing of, and therefore had no occasion to
make canons or rules of discipline to correct it. There are
many exhortations to read the Scriptures ; but no orders to
keep them locked up in an unknown tongue, or to forbid
the people to use them upon any occasion. And the only
reason, why there are no censures anciently to be found

Leo. Ser. iv. de Quadragesima. 2 Book. ii. chap, ii, and iii.

284 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
against this, sort of sacrilege, is, because the sin itself was
utterly unknown to the primitive ages.
There was indeed sometimes a neglect in ignorant or care
less teachers in preaching the word of God to the people:
and this is censured by some laws even in the civil code,1 as
a sacrilegious withdrawing from the people the necessary
food of their souls. But of this I need say no more in this
place, having fully represented the laws obliging bishops
and presbyters to be faithful and diligent in discharging this
part of their duty, while we were discoursing of preaching,2
and the usages relating to it, in the ancient Church.
There are some other things, which sometimes bear the
name of sacrilege ; but because they more properly belong
to other species of sin ; as breach of vows, to perjury ; and
defilement of consecrated virgins', to fornication ; we will
consider the discipline and treatment of these and the like
offences, under their proper heads, and proceed to the last
sort of sin, which shews irreverence to God in the use of
sacred things, commonly called simony, which is also a
sort of sacrilege, because it sets spiritual and sacred things
to sale, which are not the subject of a secular contract.
Sect. 28. — Of Simony in buying and selling Spiritual Gifts.
This is commonly distinguished by the Ancients into
three sorts. 1. Buying and selling of spiritual gifts. 2.
Buying and selling of spiritual preferments. 3. Ambitious
usurpation, and sacrilegious intrusion into ecclesiastical
functions without any legal election or ordination. The
first sort was that, which most properly had the name of
simony from simon Magus, who pretended with money to
purchase the gift of the Holy Ghost. And this was always
thought to be committed, when men either offered or re
ceived money for ordinations. Which was a crime of a very
high nature, and always punished with the severest cen-

: Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 2. de Episcopis. leg. xxv. Theodosi M. Qui
divina; legis sanctitatem aut nesciendo confundnnt, aut negligendo violant et
offendunt, sacrilcgium committunt. ' s Book xiv. chap. iv. sect. 2.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 28=»
sures of the Church. The Apostolical Canons,1 seem to
lay, a double punishment, both deposition and excommuni
cation, upon such of the clergy as were found guilty of
this crime :" if any bishop, presbyter, or deacon obtain this
dignity for money, both he that is ordained, and the ordainer
shall be deposed, and also cut off from all communion, as
Simon Magus was by Peter." The general Council of
Chalcedon has a canon to the same purpose,2 " that if any
bishop gave an ordination, or any ecclesiastical office, or
preferment of any kind for money, he himself should lose
his office, and the party so preferred be deposed." The
same punishment is appointed in the second Council of
Orleans,3 the second of Braga,* the fourth of Toledo,3 the
eleventh of Toledo,6 the Council of Constantinople, under
Gennadius,7 the Decrees of Gelasius, 8 Symmachus,9 Hor
misdas,10 and Gregory the Great,11 St. Basil,12 the second
Council'of Nice,13 and the Council of Trullo.1* Particularly
the eight Council of Toledo,15 makes it both degradation and
excommunication in every clerk so ordained. And also
punishes the receivers of simoniacal gifts with equal seve
rity ; if clergymen, with the loss of their honour ; if lay
men, with perpetual excommunication to the hour of death.
And the Civil Law also provided in this case,16 to prevent
simoniacal ordinations, that both persons ordained, and also
: their electors and ordainers should all take an oath, that

1 Can. Apost. 29. KaaSaipeiui fy avrbg £, o x^poTOvrjaag, fy iKKonTsaOia
iravrdiratri ^ r^c tcoivioviag, wc Stjuwv 6 Mayoc vtt' i^tS Herp8.
2 Con. Chalced. c. ii. s Con. Aurelian. ii. can 3, and 4.
* Con. Bracar.ii. can. 3. 6 Con. Tolet. iv. can. 18.
* Con. Tolet. xi. can. 8. 7 Con. C. P. Epist. Synod. Con.
torn. iv. p. 1025. " Gelas. Decret. Ep. i. ad Episc. Lucaniae
cap. xxvi. 9 Symmach. Decret. cap. ii. 10 Hor-,
misd. Epist. ad Episc. Hispan. cap. ii. n Greg. lib. vii. Ep. 110.
12 Basil. Ep. lxxvi. ad Episcopos. ls Con. Nie. ii. can. 5.
" Con. Trull, can. xxii. >6 Con. Tolet. viii. can. 3. Qui-
cunque propter accipiendam sacerdotii dignitatem quodlibet premium fue
rit detectus obtulisse, ex eodem tempore se noverit anathematis opprobrio
condemnatum, atque a participatione Christi corporis et sanguinis alienum.
Illi vero qui hac causS. munerum acceptores extiterint ; si clerici fuerint,
honoris amissione mulctentur : Si laici, anathemate perpetuo condemnentur.
16 Vid. Justin. Novel. 123. cap. i. Novel. 137. cap. ii.

286 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
there was nothing given or received, or so much as con
tracted or promised for any such election or ordination.
And for any bishop to ordain another without observing this
rule, is deposition by the same law, both for himself, and
him, that is so ordained by him.
The Ancients also reduce to this sort of simony, the ex
acting of any reward for administering baptism, or the eu
charist, or confirmation, or burying, or consecration of
Churches, or any the like spiritual offices, which were to be
administered freely without demanding any reward. The
Council of Trullo, particularly forbids any clergyman to
require any thing for administering the eucharist:1 " for
grace is not to be set to sale, neither do we impart the sanc
tification of the spirit for money, but give it without craft to
all, that are worthy. And he, that does otherwise, shall be
deposed as a follower of the wicked error of Simon Magus."
The eleventh Council of Toledo forbids not only the taking
of money for promotions to holy orders, but also for admi
nistering baptism, or confirmation,2 or chrism ; and the bi
shop, that connives at any of his clergy so doing, is ordered
to be excommunicated for two months: and if a presbyter
without his knowledge commits such offence, he is to be
excommunicated four months : a deacon three months ; and
those of the inferior orders, excommunicated at discretion.
There are several other ancient canons to the same purpose
in the Councils of Eliberis,3 and Braga,* and the decrees of
Gelasius,5 which have been mentioned on another occasion,6
wher,e we treated of the proper methods of raising funds and
maintenance for the clergy, and need not here be re
peated. Sect. 29. — Of Simony in purchasing ecclesiastical Preferments.
But they did not only call that simony, which consisted
in trafficking for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but also all

1 Con. Trull, can. 23. 2 Con. Tolet. xi. can. 8.
8 Con. Elib. can. 48. * Con. Bracar. ii. al. iii. can. 7.
' Gelas. Ep. al. 9. ad Episc. Lucan. cap. 7, 6 Book v. chap, iv,
sect. 14.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 287
purchases made of the spiritual preferments of the Church
and all promotions made without just merit, out of mere
favour and affection. The Council of Chalcedon, not only
threatens deposition to any bishop, that sets grace to sale
and ordains a bishop, or Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, or
deacon, or any clerk for money ;J but also if he promotes an
03conomus or steward, or an Ecdicus, that is, an advocate
or defensor, or a Paramonarius, that is, a bailiff or steward
of the lands, for his own filthy lucre. And both the clergy,
so ordained, are to be degraded; and the officers, so pro
moted, to lose their places : and if any one be instrumental,
as a mediator, in such dishonourable and unlawful traffic ;
if he be a clerk, he is to be degraded; if a layman, or a
monk, to be anathematized. By the laws of Justinian,
every elector was to depose upon oath, that he did not
chuse the party elected either for any gift or promise, or
friendship, or any other cause, but only because he knew
him to be a man of the true Catholic faith, and unblame-
able life, and good learning. Gregory the Great says,3
" there were some, who took no reward of money for ordina
tion, and yet were in some measure guilty of simony, be
cause they gave holy orders for human favour, and thence
sought the reward of praise and favour among men. They
did not give freely what they had freely received, because
for giving an holy office they required the gift of favour.
For there were three sorts of bribes, one from obsequious
ness, another from the hand, and another from the tongue.
That from obsequiousness was a servile subjection unduly
paid : that from the hand was money ; that from the tongue,
was favour." But whether this sort of simony made men
liable to ecclesiastical censure, he does not sav, but only
speaks against it as a great corruption, from which they,
' Con. Chalced. can. ii. 2 Justin. Novel. 123. cap. i.
3 Greg. Horn. ii. in Evangel. Suntnonnulli qui quidem nummorum praemia
ex ordinatione non accipiunt, et tamen sacros ordines pro humana gratia
largiuntur, atque de largitate eadem laudis solummodo retributionem quad
rant. Hi nimirum quod gratis acceptum est, gratis non tribuunt, quia de
impenso officio sanctitatis nummum expetunt favoris. — Aliud munus est ab
obsequio, aliud munus a. manu, aliud munus a. lingua, Munus quippe ab ob-.
sequio est subjectio indebite impensa; munus a manu pecunia est; munus a
linguS favor.

288 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
who give holy orders, ought to keep themselves free, ac
cording to that of the prophet, Isa. xxxiii. 15. "He that
shaketh his hands from holding of bribes."
Sect. 30.— Of Simony, in ambitious Usurpation of Holy Offices, and
Intrusion into other Men's Places and Preferments.
The last sort of simony was, when men by ambitious arts
and undue practices, by the favour and power of some great
or wealthy person, got themselves invested in any office or
preferment, to which they had no regular call or legal title,
or when they intruded themselves into other men's places,
which were legally filled before. This was the common
practice of schismatical and other ambitious spirits, who
would either thrust themselves irregularly into a vacant see,
or usurp upon one, that was already lawfully possessed and
held by another. Thus Novatian got himself clancularly
and simoniacally ordained to the bishopric of Rome, to
which Cornelius had been legally ordained before him, as
Cyprian,1 arid others often complain. And so Majorinus
was ordained anti-bishop of Carthage, in opposition to Ce
cilian, the legal bishop, by the help of Lucilla, a wealthy
woman, who spirited the faction, that was the first begin
ning of the schism of the Donatists, as Optatus and St.
Austin at large inform us.2 Now all such ordinations, being
founded on ambition and usurpation, and generally obtained
either by force, or favour, or fraud, or bribery, were usually
vacated and declared null, and both the ordained and their
ordaihers prosecuted as criminals by degradation and re
duction to the state and communion of laymen : of which,
because I have given a full account of it in a former Book,3
will not stand to make any further proof in this place : but
only note, that it was equally a simoniacal crime for any
bishop, ambitiously to thrust himself irregularly into any

1 Cypr. Ep. Hi. a. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 104. Ep. xii. et xiii. ad Cornel, et
Cornel, ap. Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 43. * Optat. lib. i. p. 41, et42.
Aug. cont. Epist. Parmen. lib. i.cap. 3. * Scholast. Hist, of
Bapt. Part. ii. chap. ii. and iv.

CHAP. VI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 289
vacant see, or remove himself by any sinister arts from a
lesser see to a greater, in contempt and despite of the
rules prescribed by the Church in that case to be observed.
For as I have noted in speaking formerly upon this subject,1
there were many severe laws made against bishops arbi
trarily removing themselves from one see to another.
Though the translation of bishops was not absolutely and
universally forbidden, because the Church had sometimes
occasion for this expedient : yet care was taken, that ambi
tious spirits should not move themselves at pleasure, but
all translations were regularly to be made only by the au
thority, consent, and approbation of a provincial council,
and to do otherwise was esteemed a crime of simoniacal am
bition of the highest nature, as proceeding from avarice or
love of pre-eminence, and using irregular methods, bribery,
favour, and faction, to compass an end against the laws of
the Church. And therefore the ancient Canons of Nice,2
and Antioch, and those called Apostolical, not only barely
forbid and disallow this practice : but the Council of Sar
dica,3 finding by experience that simple prohibitions were
not sufficient to repress it, and restrain aspiring men from it,
backed her injunctions with the highest censures, making
two very remarkable canons, which run in these words:
" That evil custom and pernicious corruption is by all
means to be rooted out, that no bishop have liberty to re
move himself from a lesser city to another. For the reason
whj he does this, is plain ; seeing we never find a bishop
labouring to remove himself from a greater city to a less.
Whence it is manifest, that all such are inflamed with
ardour of covetousness, and rather serve their ambition, and
vain glory, that they may seem to be invested with greater
authority and power. Wherefore this sinister practice
ought to be punished more severely." " And in my opi
nion," says Hosius, the president of the Council, "such
ought not to be allowed so much as lay-communion."
The next canon adds, " That if any one be so vain or pre-

1 Book vi. chap. iv. sect. 6. 2 Con. Nie. can. xv. Con.
Antioch. can. 21, Apost. can. xiv. 3 Con. Sardic. can. 1, and 2.
VOL. VI. U

290 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
sumptuous, as to think to excuse himself in this matter, by
saying, that he received letters of invitation from the people,
seeing it is possible some might be corrupted by bribes and
rewards to raise a faction in the Church, and desire to have
him for their bishop." " I think," says Hosius again,
"these fraudulent arts and underhand practices ought to be
undoubtedly punished, so as that such an one should not
be allowed even lay-communion at his last hour." And to
this the Council readily agreed : which shews what appre
hensions they had of this sort of simony, as most dangerous
and pernicious to the Church. And it is worth remarking
further, that whereas it might happen, that such an ambi
tious bishop might , by the power of a faction, be able to
maintain himself in his usurpation, in spite of all ecclesias
tical censures : therefore in this case the third Council of
Carthage °;ave orders,1 " That recourse should be had to the
secular magistrate against such a refractory and contuma
cious bishop, who would not submit to the milder sentence
of an admonition ; and that in such an exigence of absolute
necessity the ruler of the province should be entreated, ac
cording to the directions of the imperial laws, to use his
judicial authority to expel him out of the Church, which
he kept possession of by force, without giving any signs
of acquiescing or amendment." Whether there were any
imperial laws made with a direct view to this particular
case, I cannot say : but it is certain there were general laws
made by .Gratian and Honorius,2 obliging all bishops, who
were censured and deposed by any synod, to submit to the
sentence of the synod, and not to make any disturbance by
endeavouring to keep or regain the sees out of which they

1 Con. Carth. iii. can. 38. Necessitate ipsa cogente liberum sit nobis, rec-
torem provincial, secundum statutagloriosissimorumprincipum, adversus ilium
adire, ut qui miti admonitioni acquiesere noluit, et emendare illicitum, autho-
ritate judiciaria protinus excludatur. Vid. can. xliii. ib. et Cod. Afric.
can. 48, et 53. * Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 2. de Episc.
leg. xxxv. Honorii. Quicunque residentibus sacerdotibus fuerit episcopali
loco detrusus et nomine, si aliquid vel contra custodiam, vel contra quietem
publicam moliri fuerit deprehensus, rursusque sacerdotium petere, a quo
videtur expulsus, procul ab ea urbe quam infecit, secundum legem diva
memorial Gratiani, centum milibus vitam agat, &c.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 891
were synodically expelled, under the penalty of being ba
nished an hundred miles from the city, where they pretended
to raise any such disturbance. This was the law of Hono
rius, whicb refers to a former law made by Gratian upon
the same subject, which is also mentioned by Sulpicius
Severus in his history as enacted against the Priscillianists,1
though it be not now extant in the Theodosian Code. And
to these laws the African Fathers might refer, when they
ordeT all such contumacious bishops to be expelled by the
authority of the civil magistrate, according to the tenor of
the imperial laws made in this behalf, to which they refer
also in Other canons relating to the same purpose.2 And
thus much of the several greater crimes against the first and
second commandments, which made men liable to the pe
nitential discipline and censures of the Church.

CHAP. VII.
Of Sins against the Third Commandment, Blasphemy, Pro
fane Swearing, Perjury, and Breach of Vows.
Sect. 1.— The Blasphemy of Apostates.
The greater sins against the third commandment, which
chiefly brought men under public ecclesiastical censure,
were blasphemy, profane swearing, perjury, and breach of
vows solemnly made to God. For all these reflected a
particular dishonour upon his name. Blasphemy they dis
tinguished into three sorts ; First, the blasphemy of apos
tates and lapsers, whom the heathen persecutors obli
ged not only to deny, but curse Christ. Secondly, The
blasphemy of heretics and other profane Christians,
Thirdly, the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The first
sort we find mentioned in Pliny, who, giving Trajan an ac-

1 Sever. Hist. lib. ii. p. 110. ' Cod. Afric. can. 93. al. 95.
V 2

292 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
count of some Christians, who apostatised in the persecu
tion in his time, tells him, they all worshipped his image
and the images of the gods, and also cursed Christ. And
that this was the common way of renouncing their religion,
appears from the demand which the proconsul made to
Polycarp, and Polycarp's answer to it : he bid him revile
Christ, « AoiS6pr,o-ov tov XpwoV* to whom Polycarp replied,
" These eighty-six years 1 have served him, and He never
did me any harm: how then can I blaspheme my King and
my Saviour T' In the Epistles of Dionysius, bishop of Alex
andria, where he gives an account of the persecution, that
happened there, we find this was the usual way, whereby
the heathen required the Christians to abjure their religion.
They bid Metras, the Martyr,3 say the atheistical words,
which when he refused to do, they stoned him to death. So
again they bid Apollonia say, the impious words,* beating
out her teeth, and threatening to burn her alive, it she re
fused to comply with them ; and threatening all others
with the same punishment, that would not say the blasphe
mous words. Now, though Valesius thinks it difficult to
tell what these impious, blasphemous, and atheistical words
were, yet it seems plain enough they meant blaspheming
Christ, which was the thing the heathen insisted on, as their
certain indication of Christians renouncing their religion.
And so Justin Martyr says,5 when Barchocab, the ringleader
of the Jewish rebellion under Adrian, persecuted the Chris
tians, he threatened to inflict terrible punishments upon all,
that would not deny Christ and blaspheme him. This then
being only a more solemn way of renouncing religion, by
adding blasphemy to apostacy, all lapsers of this kind were
deservedly reckoned among apostates, and accordingly
punished with their punishment, to the highest degree of
ecclesiastical censure.

1 Plin. lib. x. ep. 97. Omnes et imaginem tuam, deorumque siraulachra
venerati sunt, iique et Christo maledixerunt. 2 Euseb.
lib. iv. cap. xv. 3 Ap. Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 41-
KeXt vaavreg a9ia Xkyuv py/iara, &c. * Ibid. Ta rijc aatfidag
prjfiara iicipuvriouv. Et paulo post, AutT^ij^a pi'jpira avvjiviiv.
* Justin. Apol. ii. p. 72.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 293
Sect. 2. — The Blasphemy of Heretics and profane Christians.
Another sort of blasphemers, were such as made pro
fession of the Christian religion ; but yet either by impious
doctrines or profane discourses, uttered blasphemous words
against God, derogatory to his majesty and honour. In
this sense heretics are commonly charged with blasphemy,
and more especially, those, whose doctrines more immedi
ately detracted from the excellencies, properties, and ac
tions of the divine nature. Thus Chrysostom terms those
blasphemers,1 who introduced fate in derogation to the pro
vidence of God: and Irenseus, those likewise, who denied
God to be the creator of the world.3 And the Arians and
Nestorians are generally charged with blasphemy, impiety,
and sacrilege,3 for denying the Divinity of our Saviour, and
the incarnation of the divine nature. So that the same
punishment as was inflicted upon heretics and sacrilegious
persons, was consequently the lot of this sort of blasphe
mers. St. Chrysostom joins blasphemers,* and fornicators
together, as persons, that were to be expelled from the
Lord's table. He says further,5 " under the Mosaical eco
nomy the law was, Let him, that curseth father or mother,
die the death. What shall we then say of those, who in
the time of grace and truth, and such extraordinary know
ledge, not only curse father and mother, but blaspheme
the God of the universe? All the punishments of this
world and the next are not sufficient to chastise a soul, that
is arrived to this prodigious height of wickedness. For
there is no sin greater than this, none equal to it. It is an
addition to all other crimes, confounding all religion, and
drawing inexpiable punishment after it."

' Chrys. Horn. ii. de Fato et Provid. torn. i. p. 118.
' Irenae. Praefat. in lib. iv. Nunc autem, quoniam novissima sunt tempora,
extenditur malum in homines, non solum apostatas eos faciens, sed et blas-
phernos in plasmatorem instituit. 8 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi.
tit. 5. De Haereticis. Leg. vi. Theodosii. Ariani sacrilegii venenum, &c.
It. Leg. viii. Sacrilegum dogma Arianorum. Hilarii fragment, p. 144. Arii
blasphemiae, &c. It. de Synodis. p. 104. Evagr. lib.i. cap. 2.
* Chrys. Horn. xxii. De Ira. torn. i. p. 277. 6 Horn, ii,
de Fato. torn. i. p. 811.

294 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Neither was it only this doctrinal blasphemy of hereties,
proceeding from corrupt and vicious principles, that they
thus treated both with their censures and invectives ; but
also all other blasphemies of profane Christians, whether ,
occasioned by ill opinions fixed in the mind, or other sud
den emotions of a vicious temper. This we learn from Sy-
nesius'sway of proceeding against Andronieus, the oppres
sing governor of Ptolemais. He admonished him for his
other crimes while there was any hopes of making a just
impression on him : but when he added blasphemy to all the
rest, presuming to say, no man should escape his hands,
though he laid hold of the very foot of Christ ; Synesius
thought he was no longer to be admonished, but to be cut
oft' as a putrified member, and accordingly he proceeded to
pronounce against him that famous excommunication,1 which
we have had so often occasion to mention,8 as the most
formal sentence that occurs in ancient story. I only add,
that the civil laws set a particular mark upon this crime.
For by the laws of Justinian blasphemy is reckoned a capi
tal offence, to be punished with death.3 And by the former
laws, since heresy was reputed blasphemy against God, all
the penalties inflicted on hereties, one of which was in
some cases death also, must be supposed to be punishments
awarded by law to this sort of blasphemers.
Sect. 3. — The Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. What Notion the
Ancients had of it : and what Censures they inflicted on it.
Another sort of blasphemy was, the blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, of which I must be a little more particular,
because the sense of the Ancients concerning it is not very
commonly understood. Some apply it to the great sin of
lapsing into idolatry, and apostacy, and denyirig Christ in
time of persecution. Thus Cyprian understands it, when
he says,* " They, who commit idolatry by the violence of

1 Synes. Ep. lviii. p. 198. Vid. C.P. sub Menna. act i. al. 5.
* See it at length, chap. ii. sect. 8. s Justin. Novel. 77.
• Cypr. Ep. x. al. xvi. p. 36. Summum enim delictum esse quod persecutio
committicoegit; cum dixerit Dominus et Judex noster, " Qui me confessu*

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 295
persecution, know their offence to be a very great crime,
seeing our Lord and judge has said, ' Whosoever shall con
fess me before men, him will I confess before my Father,
which is in heaven. But he that denieth me, him will I
also deny.' And again, ' All sins and blasphemies shall be
forgiven to ' the sons of men: but he, that blasphemeth
against the Holy Ghost, shall not have forgiveness; but
is guilty of eternal sin.' St. Hilary gives the same account
of this blasphemy,1 making it to consist in denying Christ
to be God. And therefore he also charges the Arians and
all other such heretics with this blasphemy,2 because their
doctrine robbed Christ of his Divinity, and denied him to be of
the same substance with the Father, however they venerated
him as God, ahd ascribed the name of God to him upon the
account of his admirable works and glorious operations.
Athanasius, and the author of the Questions to Antiochus,
under his name, are of the same opinion. Athanasius has
a particular discourse upon this subject, where he notes the
errors of Origen and Theognostus upon it, and delivers his
own opinion in opposition to them. They ,said,3 that all
they, who had received the gifts of the Holy Ghost in bap
tism and afterward run into sin, committed the unpardona
ble sin against the Holy Ghost. Which he refutes both
from the practice of St. Paul, who received the incestuous
Corinthian, and other great sinners to pardon ; and also
from the practice of the Church in opposition to the Nova-

fuerit coram hominibus, et ilium confitebor coram Patre meo qui in coelis.
Qui autem me negaverit, et ego ilium negabo." Et iterum dixerit, " Omnia
peccata remittentur filiis hominum et blasphemiae : qui autem blasphemave-
rit Spiritum Sanctum, non habebitremissam, sed reus estasterni peccati.''
1 Hilar, in. Mat. canon, xxxi p. 184. Sciebat exterrendos, fugandos, ne-
gaturos : sed quia Spiritds blasphemia nee hie nee in aeternum remittitur,
metuebat ne se Deum abnegarent, quem cssum et consputum etcrucifixum
essent contemplaturi. Qua; ratio servata in Petro est, qui cum negaturus
esset, ita negavit, "Non novi hominem." s Ibid. can. xii. p. 164.
Christo aliqua deferre, negare qua maxima sunt : venerari tanquam Deum,
Dei communione spoliare, haec blasphemia Spiritfls est: ut cum per admira-
tionem operum tantorum Dei nomen detrahere non audeas, generositatem
ejus quam confiteri es coactus in nomine, abnegata paternal substantias com
munione decerpas. 3 Athan, in illud, Quicunque dixerit
verbum. torn. i. p. 971.

296 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
tians. " Why then," says he, " are we angry at Novatus
for1 taking away repentance, and saying, there is no pardon
for those that sin after baptism V His own opinion he de
livers after this manner:1 " The Pharisees in our Saviour's
time, and the Arians in our days, running into the same
madness, denied the real Word to be incarnate, and ascribed
the works of the Godhead to the devil and his angels, a d
therefore justly undergo the punishment, which is due to
this impiety, without remission. For they put the devil in
the place of God, and imagined the works of the living and
true God, to be nothing: more than the works of the devils.
Which was the same thing, as if they had said, that the
world was made by Beelzebub, that the sun arose at his
command, and the stars in heaven moved by his direction.
For as the one were the works of God, so were the other :
and if the one were done by Beelzebub, so were the other
also. For this reason Christ declared their sin unpardona
ble, and their punishment inevitable and eternal." In ano
ther place he says,3 " They, who spake against Christ, con
sidering him only as the son of man, were pardonable,
because in the begininng of the Gospel the world looked
upon him only as a prophet, not as God, but as the son of
man: but they who blasphemed his Divinity after his works
had demonstrated him to be God, had no forgiveness, so long
as they continued in this blasphemy: but if they repented
they might obtain pardon : for there is no sin unpardonable
with God to them, who truly and worthily repent." And the
same is said by the author of the Questions to Antiochus3
under his name. St. Ambrose also defines this sin to be
denying the Divinity of Christ,* " Whoever does not confess
God in Christ, and Christ to be of God, and in God, deserves
no pardon."
Some again make it to consist in denying the Divinity of

1 Athan. in illud, torn. i. p. 975.
* Athan de Communi Essentia Iriura Personarum, torn. i. p. 237.
* Quaest. et Respons. ad Antioch. q. lxxi. torn. ii. p. 358. * Am
bros. Com. in Luc. lib. vii. cap. xii. torn. v. p. 108. Quicunquenon confite-
tur in Christo Deum, atque ex Deo et in Deo Christum, veniam non
meretur.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 297
the Holy Ghost. Thus Epiphanius brings the charge1
against the Pneumatomachi, or Macedonian heretics, whose
error consisted particularly in opposing the Godhead of the
Holy Ghost, and making him a mere creature. He says, all
heretics blaspheme and deny the truth, some more, some
less : as these Pneumatomachi did, blaspheming the Lord
and the Holy Spirit, and having pardon of sins neither in
this world, nor the world to come. He shews how they
were not pardoned in this world, because their doctrine was
condemned by the Church in the Council of Nice, and their
persons anathematised or cast out of the communion of the
Church. But then as they might be admitted to communion
again upon their repentance, so we must suppose, he means
their' sin was capable of pardon in the next world upon the
same condition, and only unpardonable upon the supposition
of obstinacy and continuance in it without repentance. St.
Ambrose also in his Treatise of the Holy Ghost, writing3
against the same heretics, charges them as guilty of this
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, for denying the Divini
ty of his person. Ahd the same charge is brought against
them by Philastrius,3 when he says, " The Lord declared
that all sins should be forgiven unto men beside the blasphe
my against the heavenly essence of the Holy Spirit. — Con-
cedi omnia peccata hominibus prceter blasphemiam dedivini
et adorandi Spiritus Essentid."
Philastrius brings the charge in general against all here
tics,* as blasphemers of the Holy Ghost. And St. Am
brose does the same,5 but then he does not assert the sin to
be absolutely unpardonable, but exhorts them to return to
the Church, with hopes of obtaining mercy and forgiveness.
Others place this sin in a perverse and malicious ascribing
the works of the Holy Spirit to the power of the devil.

1 Epipham. Hair. 74. Pneumatom. n. 14. Athanas. Ep. ed Afric. n. 11.
3 Ambros. de Spir. Sancto. lib. i. cap. 3. 8 Philastr. de
Haeres. cap. xx. Bibl. Patr. torn. iv. p. 17. * Philast. Ha:r.
Rhetorii. * Ambros. dePcenitent. lib. ii. cap. 4. Eos
quoque asserit diabolico uti spiritu qui separarent ecclesiam Dei : ut om
nium temporum haereticos et schismaticos comprehenderet, quibus indulgen-
tiam negat. Ibidem paulo post. Revertimini a&ecclesiam, si qui vos sepa-
rastis impie; omnibus enim conversis pollicetur veniam, &c.

298 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
And some of these suppose the malignity of it to consist in
doing this against knowledge and manifest convictions of
conscience, which renders them self-condemned, and their
sin simply and absolutely unpardonable. The Author of
the Questions upon the Old and New Testament, under the
name of St. Austin,1 who is supposed to be one Hilary, a
Roman deacon, expressly delivers his opinion after this
manner : " The Jews," says he, " did not sin against the
Holy Ghost out of ignorance, but maliciousness. For they
knjw the works, which our Saviour did, to be the true
works of God : but to divert the people from be
lieving on him, they pretended, against their own knowledge
and conscience, to say, That they were the works of the
prince of devils. Upon which account our Lord said to
them, ' Ye have the key of knowledge, and ye neither
enter yourselves, nor suffer others to enter.' That sentence
then was pronounced against the malignant, for whom there
is no remedy to be found to bring them to salvation. For
this is the greatest of all sins, pretending that to be false,
which men know to be true, and denying the wonderful
works of God against their own knowledge and conscience."
But in two things this author is singular: 1. In saying
the Jews acted against knowledge and conscience. For St.
Austin expressly says,2 " They did it in ignorance, by that
blindness, which happened to Israel in part, till the fulness
of the Gentiles be come in." And it seems evident from
those words of St. Peter in his sermon to them, Acts iii.
17. " I wot, brethren, that in ignorance ye did it, as did
also your rulers." 2. In that he makes their sin simply and
absolutely unpardonable, which the Ancients generally do
not, save only when it is accompanied with insuperable ob
stinacy and final impenitency, which in the nature of the

1 Aug. Quaist. in Vet. et Nov. Test. q. 102. torn. iv. p. 452. Non enim er
rore peccaverunt in Spiritum Sanctum, sed malevolentia. Scientes enim
prudentesque opera qure viderunt in gestis Salvatoris Dei esse, ut populum
a fide ejus averterent, haec siraulabant esse principis daemoniorum. — Haec
ergo sententia contra malevolos prolata est, quibus remedium inveniri hob
potest ut salventur. Nihil enim hoc crimine gravius est ; fin git enim falsum
esse, quod scit esse verum, &c. * Aug. Expos, in Rom.
p. 365. torn. iv.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 299
thing can have no pardon. For all others among the An
cients suppose it possible for men to repent of this sin, and
thereby make themselves capable of pardon, though with
great difficulty, and that the unpardonableness of it arises
from men's own obstinacy and impenitencv only, which
makes them liable to punishment both in this world and the
world to come. Thus St. Chrysostom delivers his opinion
in his Comment upon the words of our Saviour.1 " Is there
no remission for those, who repent of their blasphemy against
the Spirit? How can this be said with reason'? For we
know it was forgiven to some, that repented of it. Many of
those Jews, wrhich blasphemed the Holy Ghost, did after
wards believe, and all was forgiven them. What is there
fore the meaning of it ? That it is a sin less capable of
pardon than all others. And unless they repented of it (so
Anianus translates it) they should be punished in both worlds,
and have pardon in neither." Which he observes to be the
difference between this kind of sinners and many others.
For some sinners are punished both in this world and the
next ; others only in this world ; others only in the next ;
others neither in this world, nor the next. He gives exam
ples of all these. Some are punished both here and here
after. As these blaspheming Jews : for they suffered
vengeance here in the great calamities which befell them in
the destruction of Jerusalem: and hereafter they must un
dergo intolerable torments, as the men of Sodom, and many
others. Some suffer only in the next world, as the rich man,
who is tormented in flames, and not master of so much as
a drop of water to cool his tongue. Some suffer only in
this world, as he that committed fornication anions: the Co-
rinthians : and others neither in this world, nor the next,
as the Apostles, and Prophets, and holy Job, and such
like. For their passions were not punishments for their sinsr
but only exercises and combats to crown them with victory.
Now he supposes that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
is a sin of the first kind ; that is, one of those, for which
men, if they do not timely repent of it, shall suffer both
' Chrys. Horn. xiii. in Mat. Xii. p. 391.

300 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
here and hereafter, as the men of Sodom ; in which respect
it is said never to have forgiveness, neither in this world
nor the next, because it is punished in both. Vid. Chrys.
Horn. iii. in Lazarum. torn. v. p. 09, where he uses the
same distinction of sins punished only in this world, or only
in the next, or else as the sins of Sodom, punished in both.
Victor of Antioch, who was cotemporary with St. Chry
sostom, gives the same account of the unpardonableness,
of this sin. He says,1 " when our Saviour discourses of
the sin of blasphemy, he neither determines blasphemy
against the Son to be absolutely remissible, nor the
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be simply irre-
missible ; as if there was no place of repentance left for
such blasphemers, when they were disposed to return to
a sober mind : but only by drawing a comparison betwixt
the one and the other, he shews, that the blasphemy against
the Son, ought to be esteemed the lesser of the two, because
it seems to be levelled against him only as man."
Now from what has hitherto been discoursed, it is easy to
conceive after what manner the discipline of the Church
was exercised upon such sort of blasphemers. For first, if
all apostates, and idolaters, and such as denied Christ, or
blasphemed him, or denied his Divinity, or the Divinity of
the Holy Ghost, and such as fell into heresy or schism, were
reputed in some measure to blaspheme the Holy Ghost :
then the same punishments that were inflicted on all such
offenders, must consequently be reckoned the punishments
of those, that blasphemed the Holy Ghost. And since we
have seen those punishments under those respective heads
before, we need inquire no further after them in this place;
but only observe, secondly, That the Ancients, as many

1 Victor. Com. in Marc. iii. Bibl. Patr. torn. i. p. 41 1. Cum de blasphe-
miae peccato Salvator noster disserit, neque convitium in filium absolute
remissibile, neque blasphemiam rursus in Spiritum Sanctum irremissibile
limpliciter definire vult : quasi nullus prorsus ejusmodi blasphemis, dum-
modo ad sanam mentem redire in animum induxerint, pcenitentiae locus re-
lictus sit; verum comparatione quadam inter hanc et illam facta, indicat
eam quae cadit in filium, tanquam quae in hominem proxime ferri videatur,
multo mihorem censeri.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 301
at least as went upon this supposition, that the blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost was committed in these several
crimes, could not imagine it to be a sin simply ahd abso
lutely incapable of pardon : because they did not shut the
door of repentance to any such offenders, or reckon them
altogether reprobate and desperate, but invited them to
repent, and prayed for their conversion, and received them
again to peace and communion upon their humble confes
sion and evidences of a true repentance. Which argues,
that they did not believe the sin against the Holy Ghost to
be altogether unpardonable, but only to the impenitent;
since they granted pardon to the penitent in this world, and
gave them hopes of obtaining pardon from God in the world
to come. It is true indeed, St. Austin, and several others in the
Latin Church, seem to say, that this sin is altogether un
pardonable both in this world and the next. But if we
rightly take their meaning, they differ not at all from the
former. For they suppose, that no man perfectly commits
the sin against the Holy Ghost, but he that finally dies ob
durate, and in resistance to all the gracious motions and
operations of the Holy Spirit to the end of his days: in
which ease, it is but natural to conclude from the nature of
the thing, that such men can have no pardon for their sin,
neither in this world nor the world to come: not because
any thing they do in their life time, makes it an unpardona
ble sin in itself; but because they wilfully continue impeni
tent to the last, and so make it impossible and impracticable
upon the principles of the Gospel, to obtain pardon either
of God or his Church, in this world or the world to come :
since the covenant of grace and pardon only respects those,
who embrace it in this life, and not such as put off repen
tance to another world, where they will repent without reme
dy, or, in the Apostle's words, " find no room for repen
tance," or change of God's purposes," though they seek it
carefully with tears."
In this sense Fulgentius understands our Saviour's words
as menacing punishment to those, that obstinately continue
in their wickedness, and let judgment overtake them in
their sins. He says, " Repentence is of advantage to every

302 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
man in this life, whatever time he truly turns to God, Quam-
libet iniquus, quamlibet annosus, although he be the great
est of sinners, although he be grown old in sin : but if he
continue obdurate to the last, there is no mercy for him,
For as mercy will receive and absolve those, that are conver
ted,1 so justice will repel and punish the obdurate. For
they are those, who sin against the Holy Ghost, and shall
not have remission of sins either in this world or the world
to come." The Author of the Book, of True and False
Repentance,3 under the name of St. Austin, says the same,.
" That they only sin against the Holy Ghost, who continue
impenitent unto death. For the Holy Spirit is love, who
gives his grace to us as an earnest. He therefore that sins
and desires not to recover his grace, nor ever after is con
cerned to be loved by him, nor seeks to him from whom he
received his earnest, sins against the Holy Spirit, and shall
never obtain pardon, either living, or after death : but no
one sins against the Holy Spirit, that flies unto him for
mercy." And therefore he says, " Our Saviour's words to
the Jews, were rather an admonition to them, not to continue
in sin, because if they went on as they had begun, their
blasphemy would lead them unto death." Bacchiarius,3 an
African writer about the time of St. Austin, explains him
self after the same manner. He says, " This sin consists
in such a despair of God's mercy, as makes men give
over all hopes of attaining by the power of God to that state
and condition, from which they are fallen. And so conse
quently go on in sin without repentance to their lives' end."
St. Austin speaks often of this crime, and he places it in a

1 Fulgent, de Fide ad Petrum. cap. iii. Sicut enim misericordia suscipit
absolvitque conversos, ita Justitia repellet, punietque obduratos. Ii sunt,
qui peccantes in Spiritum Sanctum, neque in hoc sasculo neque in futuro
remissionem accipient peccatorum. s Aug. de Vera et Falsa
poenitentia, cap. iv. torn. iv. Soli peccant in Spiritum Sanctum, qui impoeni-
tentes existunt usque ad mortem, &c. » Bacchiar. Epist. de
Recipients Lapsis. Bibl. Patr. torn. iii. p. 133. Dico hoc ipsum, desperare
de Domino, in Spiritum esse peccare, quia Dominus est Spiritus, et ideo non
remittitur ei, quia non crediderit Dominum reddere sibi posse quod per-
didit.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 303
continual resistance of the motions and graces of the Holy
Spirit, by an invincible hardness of heart, and final impen i
tency to the end of a man's days. " Some," says he,1
" placed it in the commission of mortal sins after baptism,
and after having received the Holy Ghost, as doing despite
to so great a gift of Christ, by falling into such sins as
adultery, murder, apostacy, or separation from the Catho
lic Church." But this, he thinks, cannot be the meaning
of it; because the Church allows room for repentance for
all sins, and corrects heretics only with this intent, that they
may repent. He says further,2 that it consists notin denying
the Divinity or Person of the Holy Ghost, or believing him
to be a creature, unless men persist in these errors to the
end of their days. For many Catholic Christians were once
Jews, or Pagans, or heretics, such as the Arians, Euno-
mians, Macedonians, Sabellians, Patripassians, and Photini
ans, who all deny either the Divinity or the Personality of
the Holy Ghost. And if all these, who speak against the
Holy Ghost, have no forgiveness, in vain do we promise or
preach to men, that they should turn to God, and obtain
peace and remission of sins by baptism, or in the, Church.
For it is not said, with any exception, this sin shall not be
forgiven, save only in baptism : but, " It shall not be for
given, neither in r this world, nor in the world to come."
Hence he infers, that it is not all kind of blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost, but a particular sort of blasphemy that is
thus threatened. And that is, final impenitency, or resisting
to the uttermost the gracious offers of remission of sins
made by the Holy Ghost.3 " This impenitency, is the blas
phemy, that has neither remission in this world ; nor in the
world to come. But of this impenitency no one can judge,
so long as a man lives in this life. We are to despair of no
man, so long as the patience of God leads him to repen
tance, and does not snatch away the sinner out of life, who
would not the death of a sinner ; but rather that he should
return and live. A man is a pagan to day ; but how know-

1 Aug. Serm. xi. de Verbis Domini, cap.iv. * Ibid. cap. iii.
* Ibid. cap. xiii.

304 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
est thou, but that he may become a Christian to morrow ?
To day he is an unbelieving Jew : but what if to morrow
he should believe in Christ 1 To day he is an heretic : but
what if to morrow- he should embrace the catholic truth %
To day he is a schismatic : but what if to morrow he should
return to the peace of the Church 1 What if they, whom
you mark as immersed in any kind of error, and damn as
desperate, should repent, before they end this life, and find
true life in the world to come 1 Judge nothing, brethren,
before the time. For this blasphemy of the Spirit^ which.
has no remission, and which we have shewn to be a per
severing hardness of an impenitent heart, cannot be descried
in any man whilst he continues in this life." At last he con
cludes,1 " There is but one way to avoid the condemna
tion of this unpardonable blasphemy, which is, to beware
of an impenitent heart, and to believe that repentance pro
fits not but only in the Catholic Church, where remission is
granted, and the unity of the spirit is preserved in the bond
of peace." St. Austin often repeats this notion,2 and he
gives the same account of what the Apostle calls the sin
unto death, for which he forbids men to pray. He says,
" It means that hardness and impenitency of heart, where
by men obstinately reject faith, and charity, and remission
of sins to their last hour." And whereas he had seemed to
say in one place,8 " That this blasphemy consisted in a
malicious and envious opposition to brotherly charity, after
a man had received the grace of the Holy Ghost :" he ex
plains this in his Retractations,* saying, there ought to be
1 Aug. Ser. xi. de Verbis Domini, cap. xxiv. ' De Cor-
rept. et Gratia, cap. xii. Ego dico id esse peccatum ad mortem, fidem quae
per dilectionem operatur, deferere usque ad mortem, lt. Ep 1. p. 88. Hoc
est autem duritia cordis usque ad finem hujus vitae, qu& homo recusat in
unitate corporis Christi, quod vivificat Spiritus Sanctus, remissionem acci
pere peccatorum. Enchirid. cap. lxxxiii. Qui in ecclesia remitti peccata
non credens, contemnit tantam divini inuneris largitatem, et in hac obstina-
tione mentis diem claudit extremum, reus est irremissibili peccato in Spiritum
Sanctum, in quo Christus peccata dimittit. s Aug. de Serm.
Dom. in Monte, lib. i. cap. xxii. * Retract, lib. i.
cap. 19. Sed tamen addendum fuit, si in h&c tam scelerata mentis perversitate
finierit hanc vitam ; quoniam de quocunque pessimo in hac vita constituto
non est utique desperandum, nee pro illo imprudenter oratur, de quo non
desperatur.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 305
added this condition, if he ends this wicked perverseness of
mind : because we are not to despair of the very worst man,
while he continues in this life ; neither is there any impru
dence in praying for him, of whom we do not despair. He
confirms this notion again at large in his Commentary upon
the Epistle to the Romans. Where he first gives this de
scription of it :l " That man sins against the Holy Ghost,
who despairing, or deriding, or contemning the preaching
of grace, by which sins are washed away, and the preach
ing of peace, by which we are reconciled to God, refuses
to repent of his sins, and resolves to continue hardening
himself in the impious, and deadly sweetness of them, and
therein persists to his last end." He then shews by great
variety of instances, that any other blasphemy against the
Spirit is capable of pardon, except this, which includes ob-
duration to the last. The Pagans daily blaspheme the
whole Trinity and the whole system of the Christian reli
gion : and yet the Church makes no scruple to receive them
to pardon of sins by baptism upon their conversion. The
Jews are charged by Stephen for resisting the Holy Ghost,
and yet Paul, who was then one of the number of those,
whom he so charged, was afterwards filled with the same
spirit, which he had resisted. The Samaritans opposed the
Holy Ghost, and yet both Christ and his Apostles attest to
the conversion of many of them. Simon Magus had con
ceived very ill opinions of the Holy Spirit, so as to think his
gifts might be purchased with money ; yet St. Peter did
not despair of him, so as to leave him no room for pardon,
but kindly admonished him to repent. Neither does the
Catholic Church shut the gate of pardon to any heretics or
schismatics, or leave them without hopes of appeasing God,
upon their correction and amendment : though some of them
deny the very being and person of the Holy Ghost ; others

• ' Aug. Expos, in Rom. i. torn. iv. p.'363. Ille peccat in Spiritum Sanc
tum, qui desperans vel irridens atque oontemnens praedicationem gratia:, per
quam peccata diluuntur, et pacis, per quam teconciliamnr Deo, detrectat agere
poenitentiam de peccatis suis, et in eorum impia atque mortiferS. quadam sua-
vitate perdurandum sibi esse dtcernit, et in finem usque perdurat.
VOL. VI. X

200 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
make him a mere creature, and deny his Godhead ; others
make the substance of the whole Trinity mutable and cor
ruptible ; others deny the mission of the Holy Ghost upon
the Apostles, and make his first descent to be uponMontanus ;
and others despise his sacraments, and rebaptise those, who
were baptised before in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost Nay, he thinks some of those very Jews, to
whom our Saviour gave a caution against this crime, after
ward repented of their blasphemy, though proceeding from
envy and malice : and that St. Paul may be reckoned one
of that number ; being a blasphemer, and a persecutor
and injurious, as they were, in ignorance and unbelief; and
putting himself in the number of those, who were some
times foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts
and pleasures, living in envy and malice, hateful and hating
one another. If, therefore, neither Pagans, nor Hebrews,
nor heretics, nor schismatics, yet unbaptised, are precluded
from the sacrament of baptism, whatever opposition they
have made to the Holy Ghost before, if they sincerely
repent, and condemn their former life ; if also they, who
have attained to the knowledge of the truth, and are bap
tised, may, after they have fallen into sin and resisted the
Holy Ghost, be restored to. the peace of God by repentance;
finally if they, to whom our Saviour objected blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, might repent and be healed by
flying to the mercy of God : what remains, but that by the
sin against the Holy Ghost, which our Lord says, " Is
never forgiven neither in this world nor the world to come,"
we should understand nothing else but perseverance in
malignity and wickednesk, with despair of the indulgence!
and mercy of God I1 For this is to resist the grace and
peace of the Spirit, of which we are speaking. He says
also, that our Saviour in the same place, where he reproves
the Jews for their blasphemy, intimates, that the door of
repentance and amendment was not yet shut against them,
when he says, " Either make the tree good, and its fruit
good ; or else make the tree evil, and its fruit evil." Which
1 Aug. Expos, in Rom. i. torn. iv. p. 3G6. Quid aliud restat, nisi ut pee-
catum in Spiritum Sanctum, quod neque in hoc seculo neque in futuro dimitti
Dominus dicit, nullum intelligatur nisi perseverantia in neqnitia et maligni-
tate cum desperationc indulgentiae Dei ? &c.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 307
could not with any reason have been said to them, if now
for that blasphemy they could not have changed their mind
for the better, and have brought forth the fruit of good
works, or should in vain have brought them forth without
remission of their sin. He therefore concludes, that they
had not yet committed fully the unpardonable sin, but only
begun it, in saying, " That he cast out devils by Beelzebub,"
and that Christ admonishes them not to complete it, by
resisting his grace and peace, either by despairing of par
don, or presuming on their own righteousness, or continu
ing impenitent, and persevering in their sins : for this was
to speak the blasphemous word against the Holy Ghost, by
which Christ wrought those miracles to bring them to
his grace aud peace. He observes here, that to speak
blasphemy agaisnt the Holy Ghost, is not put to de
note barely the uttering it with the tongue, but the
conceiving it in the heart, and expressing it in ac
tions. For as they are not properly said to confess God,
who do it only with the sound of their lips, and not with
their good works : so he, who speaks the unpardonable
word against the Holy Ghost, is not presumed to say it per
fectly, unless he do, as well as say it : that is, despair of
the grace and peace, which the spirit gives, and resolve to
persevere in his sins. That as the others deny God in their
works, so these say by their works, that they resolve to
persevere in an evil life and corrupt morals, and so say,
and so do, that is, continue in them to the end of their days.
Which if they do, what needs any one wonder that their
blasphemy should be unpardonable \ Or who is it now,
that cannot understand both that the Lord Jesus by that
eommination called the Jews to repentance, that he might
grant them grace and peace by their believing on him : and
also how it becomes impossible, that they should have par
don either in this world or the world to come, who resist this
grace and peace, and after this manner speak the word of
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, that is, by a desperate
and impious obstinacy of mind, persevere in their sins, and
proudly resist God without any humility of confession or re
pentance 1
This was St. Austin's constant and invariable sense of
x2

SOS THE ANTIQUITIES OK THE [BOOK XVI.
this matter, out of which the Schoolmen, I know not how,
have raised six several species of blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, viz. despair, presumption, final impenitency,
obstinacy in sin, opposing- and impugning the truth, which
a man knows, and envious malice against the grace of
the brethren : whereas nothing can be plainer, than that St.
Austin resolves the whole matter into obstinacy in opposing
the methods of divine grace, and continuing in this obdu-
ration finally without repentance. Other sins may lead the
way to this blasphemy, in word or action, as infidelity or
reviling the Spirit in Jews or heathens; or heresy, or
schism, or an immoral life in Christians after baptism: but
all this is only inchoative blasphemy, which does not render
it absolutely unpardonable : for many of all these sorts
have repented and obtained pardon: but when men con
tinue obstinate in any of these sins, and finally die impeni
tent in them, then their sins become punishable in both
worlds, and pardonable in neither ; not for want of mercy
in God or his Church, but for want of -repentance and ca
pacity in the subject.
And by this account it is easy now to determine what sort
of punishments and ecclesiastical censures were inflicted
on this crime, as well in the first rise and beginning, as in
the progress and consummation of it. The same punish
ment, that was laid upon idolatry, or apostacy, or denying
the Divinity of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or lapsing into
any great immorality, or other blasphemy after baptism, was
laid upon this sin of blaspheming the Holy Ghost: be
cause it usually began in some of these notorious misde
meanours ; of which if men truly repented, the door of
mercy was still open to them, and the Church was ready to
receive them again to communion: but if they continued
obdurate all their lives, and died in their impenitency ; as
this was esteemed the consummation of the great sin
against the Holy Ghost, and properly the sin unto death ;
so it could have no forgiveness in this world, nor the world
to come. They died excommunicate, and so had neither
the solemnity of a Christian burial nor the suffrages of the
Church after death ; being struck out of her Diptychs, and no
memorial ever after made of them, as of persons desperate,
and entirely out of God's favour.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 309
I have been the longer in explaining the sense of the
Ancients upon this point, not only because it is not very
commonly known, but also because it may be of use, both
to caution ungodly men against the danger of final impeni
tency, which is the consummation of the blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost ; and likewise serve to comfort the pious,
who need be in no concern about the commission of this
sin, so long as they truly repent of all sin, and desire to
please God in the constant tenour of an holy life. For this
sin cannot consist with a true repentance : and though men
have begun in any degree to eommit it, yet according to
the general 'sense of the Ancients, they are still capable of
pardon, if they do not render it unpardonable by their own
obstinacy and wilful impenitency to the hour of death, after
which it can have no forgiveness in this world or the world
to come. Sect. 4.- — Of profane Swearing. All Oalhs not forbidden.
The next transgression of the third commandment, which
they punished with ecclesiastical censure, was profane
swearing, or reproaching and dishonouring the name of
God by oaths and execrations. By which they did not
mean all oaths in general, nor yet any single act of rash
and hasty swearing, unless attended with some other aggra
vating crime or circumstance of apostacy, idolatry, perjury,
or the like, but only the habit and custom of profane swear
ing. Chrysostom indeed, and some others, in their sharp
invectives against common swearing seem sometimes to
carry the matter so far, as to deny the- lawfulness of
all oaths to Christians in any ease whatsoever.1 But
whatever private opinions some few might have, of this
matter, in which they were not constant or consistent
with themselves, as learned men have observed :2 it is cer
tain there never was any public rule pf the Church to
forbid this, and much less to make it the subject of ecclesi
astical censure. The generality of Christians always

1 Vid. Sixtum Senensem Bibliothec. lib. vi. annot. 26. where all such pas
sages are collected. 2 Cave. Prim. Christ, part. iii. cap. i.
,p 213

310 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
esteemed the taking of an oath in necessary cases for
confirmation of truth, to be a very lawful thing, as appears
both from the laws themselves, ecclesiastical as well as
civil, and from general practice. One of Constantine's
laws is confirmed with a solemn oath in the very body of
rit, where he promises to encourage any one, that shall give
just information against the corrupt practices of his minis
ters,1 with this formal asseveration, " As the Most High
God shall be merciful to me, and preserve me in safety,
according to my desire, in the flourishing state of the com
monwealth." Nothing was more usual than the taking of
oaths for confirmation of contracts, as is evident from that
famous law of Arcadius,3 which inflicts many severe penal
ties upon all, that violate their contracts made in the name
and confirmed by the authority of Almighty God: and alsoon
such, as broke their contracts, which they confirmed by an
oath taken in that peculiar form of swearing by the Empe
ror's safety. Which was an usual form of an oath among
Christians, as ancient as Tertullian, who mentions it in an
swer to an objection made by the heathen against them, as
if they were enemies to the government, and guilty of
treason, because they refused to swear by the Emperor's
genius : to this he replies,3 " that though they did not
swear by the Emperor's genius, yet they made no scruple
to swear by the Emperor's safety, a thing more august than
all the genii in the world. For the genii were no
thing but devils. In the Emperors they acknowledged
God's institution and authority, who set them over the
nations : and therefore they desired their safety and preser
vation, as God's appointment, and made a great and solemn

1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix.tit. i. de Accusation, leg. 4. Ita mihi summa divi-
nitas semper propitia sit, et ine incolumemprfEStet, Ut cupio, felicissima et flo-
rente republica. s Cod. Theod. lib. ii. lit. 9. de Pactis.
leg. 8. Si quis adversus pacta putaverit esse veniendum, non iniplendo pro-
missa ea quai invocato nomine Dei Omnipotentis, eo Auctore solidaverit, inu-
ratur infamia, &c. Eos etiam hujus litis vel jacturS dignos' jubemus esse
vel munere, quinomina nostra placitis inserentes, salutem principum conjir-
raationem ihitarum esse juraverint pactionum. 8 Tertul. Apol. cap. xxxii.
Sed etjuramus, sicut non per genios Caesarum,. ita per salutem eorum, qua; est
augustior omnibus geniis, &c.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 311
oath of that : but for the daemons, or genii, they were used
to abjure them, in order to cast them out of the bodies of
men, not to swear by them, and thereby confer divine ho
nour upon them." Athanasius mentions the satne form as
used in his time, both by the Catholics, and by Syrianus the
prefect of Egypt, telling Constantius,1 that he swore by his
safety; And the like instances are given by Sozomen,2
and Zosimus,s the heathen historian. In the collation of Car
thage, Marcellinus, the Emperor's commissioner, who was
appointed to hear the debate between the Catholics and the
Donatists in the time of Honorius, at the entrance of the
dispute promised both sides upon oath by the admirable
mystery of the Trinity, and the sacrament or mystery of the
divine incarnation,* and the safety of the Emperors, that he
would judge truly according to the allegations of the par
ies. And the same form was observed in the military oath
taken by the soldiers, when they entered upon the muster-
roll, as we learn from Vegetius, who lived in the time of
the younger Valentinian: .he says,5 they swore by God, by
Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the majesty of the Empe
ror, which next to God is to be loved and honoured by man
kind. In many other cases the law required men to swear
upon weighty concerns. Constantine required every wit
ness to take an oath before he gave his testimony in any
cause.6 And Justinian not only confirmed this in his Code,1
but added several other cases, in which hot only witnesses,
but also both the plaintiff and defendant, and the advocates
were to take their several oaths upon the Gospels. And
this was called, Juramentum de calumnid, the oath of ca
lumny,6 where tbe plaintiff" was particularly obliged before

1 Athan. Epist. ad Monachos. torn. i. p. 866. Vide Athan. Apol. ad Con
stant, torn. i. p. 689. s Sozom, lib. ix. cap. 7.
sZosim. Hist. lib. v. '* Collat. Carth. die. i. cap. v. Per
admirabile mysteriumTrinitatis, per incarnationis Dominica sacramentum,
et per salutem principum, quod veri invenerit fides, judicaturum me esse pro-
mitto. 6 Veget. de Re Militari, lib. i. cap. 5.
6 Cod. Theod. lib. xi. tit. xxxix. leg. 3. Jurisjurandi religione testes prius
quam perhibeant testimonium, jamdudumartari prascipimus.
7 Justin. Cod. lib. iv. tit. 20. de Testibus. leg. 9. e. Cod.
Justin, tit. 59. de Jurejurando propter Calumniam. leg. 1 and 2.

312 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI
he could prosecute his action, to swear, that he did not
bring his action against his adversary with any design to
calumniate him, but because he thought he had a just and
rightebus cause: and the defendant was to take a like oath
before he could give in his answer. They were likewise
obliged by another law to swear,1 that they had given no
bribe to the judges or any other person, nor promised to
give any, nor would hereafter give any. And it has been
observed before,3 that to prevent simony in elections to ec
clesiastical preferments, the electors were obliged by the
same laws of Justinian8 to depose upon oath, that they did
not chuse the party elected either for gift, promise, or friend
ship, or any other reason, but because they knew him to be
in every respect well qualified for such a station. And the
party ordained was likewise to take an oath,* upon the Holy
Gospels, at the time of his ordination, that lie had neither
given by himself, or other, nor promised to give, nor would
hereafter give to his ordainer, or to any of his electors, or
any other persons any thing to procure him an ordination.
And for any bishop to ordain another bishop without observ
ing this rule, is deposition by the same law both for the
ordained and his ordainer. Which shews also, that the
injunction of taking necessary oaths did not only bind in
secular and civil affairs but in ecclesiastical and sacred like
wise. -And here not to insist upon all that is said in private
writers ; as Athanasius requiring of Constantius,5 that his
accusers might be put to their oath ; and Evagrius, aTchdea-
con of Constantinople,6 swearing upon the Holy Gospels ;
and what is said by St. Austin,7 and many others in justi
fication of this practice in necessary cases : I only observe
that in some Councils oaths are expressly required by gene
ral and provincial Councils in many cases. The oath of
fidelity to kings is required by the fifth Council of Toledo,8

J Justin. Novel. 124. cap. i. ' Chap. vi. sect. 28.
" Justin. Novel. 123. cap. i. * Justin. Novel. 137. cap. ii.
1 Athan. Apol. ad Constantium. torn. i. p. 678. 6 Sozomen.
lib. vi. cap. 30. T Aug. Ep. 154. ad Publicolam. Ser. xxx.
de Verbis Apostoli. lib. i. de Serm. Dom. cap. xxx. Greg. Naz. Ep. 219.
ad Theodorum. Basil, in Psal. xiv torn. i. p. 133. Hieron. in Mat. v.
' Con. Tolet. v. can. 2. Hoc quod divinis lacrimentis spospondimus, &c.

CHAP, VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 313
to be taken by all, both clergy and laity. And a reference
is made to a former Council of all Spain, where the same
oath was established. That is, the fourth Council of Toledo
where a complaint is made,1 of many nations breaking the
oath *>f fidelity taken to their kings: which, they rightly
observe, destroys their predit with all nations in matters of
leagues and treaties about peace and war. For what enemy
can depend upon their promises, though given upon oath,
who do not preserve the faith, which they swear to their
own kings 1 Such violation of oaths and fidelity to their
kings, is sacrilege : because it is not only a breach^ of com
pact against them, but against God, in whose name the
promise is made. The same Council,2 takes notice of kings
promising upon oath to pardon criminals in some special
cases. And the eighth Council of Toledo, mentions many
cases, in which it was usual to confirm matters with a so
lemn oath ;3 as the making of leagues ; the settling of last
ing and inviolable friendship ; the taking of the evidence
and depositions of witnesses in law ; and in want of such
evidence, the allowing a man to clear his own innocence by
an oath of purgation. And in the sixth general Council,
held at Constantinople, Georgius Chartophylax is appointed
several times to take his corporal oath by the Holy Scrip
tures and God, that speaksin them,* concerning certain things,
the truth of which he was to attest before the Council.
From all which it is evident, that the ancient Christians
thought it a very lawful thing to ratify and confirm their
faith by the formality of an oath, upon just and necessary
occasions: and consequently, that there could be no rule
to prohibit it, much less to make it a crime worthy of ecclesi
astical censure.
1 Cpn. Tolet. Iv. can. 74. Qua? in hostibus jurata sponsio stabilis per-
mnnebit, quando nee ip'sis propriis regibus juratam fidem conservant ? —
Sacrilegium quippe est, si violetur a gentibus regum suorum promissa fides:
quia non solum in eos sit pacti transgressio, sed etin Deum, in cujus nomine
pollicetur ipsa promissio, &c. s Ibid. can. xxx. Jureju-
rando supplicii indulgentia promittitur. " Con. Tolet. viii.
can. ii. Omne quod in pacis foedera venit, tunc solidius subsistit, cum jura-
menti hoc interpositio roborat, &c. * Con. vi. C.P. act. xiii.
p. 378. Edit. Crab. Georgius Chartophylax juravit hoc modo: Per has
sanctas Scripturas, ct Deum qui per cas locutus est, &c. It. Act. xiv.p. 3S2.

314 THE ANTIQTJITHTS OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Sect. 5.— But only the Custom of vain and common Swearing.
Neither was it every single act of vain and common swear
ing, that brought a man under public discipline. Fot
though every such act was esteemed a crime, yet it was not
like the single act of apostacy or idolatry, or murder or adul
tery, but it must be a custom or habit of this vice, that made
a man liable to the severity of excommunication. Tertullian1
says expressly, that every rash and vain oath did not bring
a man under the discipline of public penance, but was rec
koned among the sins of daily incursion, for which private
repentance was appointed. And St. Chrysostom, who is most
vehement and severe against this vice, does not threaten men
with excommunication for every single act of it, but for ob
stinate continuance in the custom and practice of it after
sufficient admonition. Having preached a whole Lent
against swearing to the people of Antioch, he thus con
cludes his last discourse:2 " The forty days of Lent.are al
ready past ; if Easter passes likewise without reforming this
wicked custom, I will thenceforward pardon no man, nor
use any longer admonition, but commanding authority, and
sharpness not to be despised. It is no just apology in this
ease to plead custom. For why may not the robber as well
plead custom, and thereby excuse himself from punishment?
and why may not the murderer and adulterer do the same?
Therefore I protest and denounce beforehand, that if I ap
prehend any, who have not corrected this vice, I will inflict
punishment upon them, and order them, to be excluded from
the participation of the holy mysteries." So again, in ano
ther Homily,3 to the people of Antioch: " For this sin we
mourn and lament : but if 1 find any to persist in it, I will
exclude them from entering the doors of the Church, and
partaking of the heavenly mysteries. Nor let any one think
to insult me by the help of his riches or power. Those
things are no more to me than a mere fable, a shadow, or a

'Tertul.de Pudicit. cap. xix. See before, chap. iii. sect. 14.
5 Chrys. Horn. xxii. ad Pop. Antioch. torn. i. p. 294. 3 Chrys.
.Horn. xvii. in Mat. p. 182.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 315
dream. No rich man will be able to be my advocate, when
I am accused before God's tribunal, that I did not with all
my power and might assert and vindicate the laws of God,
by punishing the transgressors of them."

Sect. 6. — And Swearing by the Creatures.
Another transgression of this command, was swearing by
the creatures. The fourth Council of Carthage orders a
clergyman,1 that was found guilty of this crime, to be first
sharply reproved, and if he persist in his fault, to be excom
municated. St. Jerom says,8 our Saviour prohibited it in
those words, " Thou shall not swear by heaven, nor by earth,
nor Jerusalem, nor by thy head." And there goes a decree
under the name of Pope Pius I.3 which forbids men not only
to swear by the hair, or head of God, or any other such blas
phemous oaths, but by the creature, under the penalty of
excommunication. But because this may seem to contradict what they said
before, that a man might lawfully swear by the Emperor's
safety ; we are to consider, that in such oaths they did not
properly swear by the creatures, invoking them as witnes
ses of the truth of what they said, but only naming them
with some relation to God, by whom they swore. Which,
as learned men observe,* may lawfully be done two ways.
1. In execratory oaths, when a man devotes any creature,
in which he himself has some right and property, and as it
were oppignorates it to the severe vengeance of God, the
Judge, if he swear falsely. Thus a man may in a serious

1 Con. Carth. iv. can. 61. Clericum per creaturas jurantem, acerrime
objurgandum. Si perstiterit iu vitio, excommunicandum.
8 Hieron. in Mat. v. Considera quod hie Salvator non per Deum jurare pro-
hibuerit, sed per cesium, et terram, et Hierosolymam, et per caput tuum.
8 Ap. Gratian. caus. xxii. quaest. i. cap. 10. Si quis per capillum Dei vel
caput juraverit, vel alio modo blasphemia contra Deum usus fuerit ; si eccle-
siastico ordine est, deponatur; si laicus, anathematizetur. Et si quis per
creaturain juravei it, acerrime castigetur, &c. * Vid. Rivet, in
Decalog. p. 126.

316 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THIi [BOOK XVI.
matter devote his head, his soul, his children, or any other
thing belonging to him, if he knowingly forswear himself.
Such examples of oaths we have in Scripture, which respect
God always directly as witness and judge ; and the creature
only as something dear to us, which we are willing to pawn,
to certify our neighbour thereby, that we intend not todeceive
him, to the destruction of ourselves, or any things, that are
highly valued by us. Thus David swears, Psal. -vii. 5. "If
I have I done any such thing, O Lord, my God, or if there
be any wickedness in my hands, then let my enemy perse
cute my soul." So St. Paul, 2 Cor. i. 23. " 1 call God
fot a record upon my soul." And thus men were used to
swear by their head, devoting it to a curse, if they wit
tingly falsified. This way of using the name of a creature
in an oath is reputed lawful ; because this is not properly
the oath, but only an appendix of it.
2. The other way of mentioning the creatures in an oath,
without swearing by them, is, when by a testification of the
civil respect and affection they have for them, they likewise
signify in the presence of God, the truth of what they say
to men, that it is as certainly true, as they certainly and
undoubtedly wish the wealth and prosperity of such a crea
ture or person. Thus Joseph, when he swore by God,
mentioned the life of Pharaoh, Gen. xiii. 15. which the
Vulgar Latin renders, " Per salutem Pharaonis" from
the Septuagint, " Njj rijv vyttiav $>apau>, — by the safely
of Pharaoh :"' which is the same form, that, as we have
seen before, the primitive Christians used, when they inser
ted the words, " Per salutem Imperatoris," into their or
dinary oaths conceived in the name of God only. For
neither of these intended to swear by the creatures, but to
testify in the presence of God, that what they asserted was
as certainly true, as they wished the safety of Pharaoh, or
the Emperor, or as certainly as they were in health and in
being. For such forms may be taken either by way of
prayer, or asseveration and protestation ; where the protes
tation is plainly expressed, but that which is properly the
oath in the name of God is covertly understood. And fn
this sense both the ancient Christians and Joseph are to be

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 317
understood. For as St. Basil observes,1 there are some
modes of expression, which seem to be oaths, but are
not properly oaths, but only asseverations, to confirm the
truth to men: he instances in that of Joseph, who sware,.
NjJ tt\v vykiav Maputo, — by the safety of Pharaoh."
Sect. 7.— And by the Emperor's Genius, and Saints and Angels.
But the case was otherwise when men swore. directly by
any creatures, as judges and revengers of their thoughts,
if they were false and perfidious in their deposition. There
fore, though the Christians admitted the naming of the Em
peror's safety in their oaths, they would never swear by the
Emperor's genius, because this was idolatry, and in effect
apostatising to heathenism, and renouncing the Christian
religion. The persecutors required no more of them but
this, as a testimony of their renunciation. In the Passion of
Polycarp, recorded by Eusebius,2 the proconsul required
him frequently to swear by the Emperor's genius : to which
he constantly replied, " That he was a Christian." So in
the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs in Afric,3 the judge bids
them only swear by the Emperor's genius, and that should
pass for an acknowledgment of the gentile religion : but
they answered, " We know nothing of the Emperor's ge
nius, but we worship and serve the God of heaven." The
like is said by Origen,* " We swear not by the Emperor's
fortune or genius : for whether fortune be only a casual
thing, as some repute it, we swear not by that as a God,
which is nothing in the world, ldst we should apply the
power of an oath to that, which we ought not ; or whether
fortune be one of the daemons, as others say, we rather
chuse to die, than swear by an impious and wicked devil."

1 Basil, in Psal. xiv. torn. i. p. 133. " Euseb. lib. v. cap.
xv. p. 131. 'O/ioaov rqv Kaiaapog tvx^v. ' Acta
Mart. Scyllitan. ap. Baron, an. 202. n. 2. Proconsul, dixit : Tantum jura
per genium regis nostri. Speratus dixit, Ego imperatoris mundi genium
nescio, sed coelesti Deo meo servio. * Orig. cont. Cels.
lib. viii. p. 421.

318 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
The like is said by Minucius,1 " That it was peculiar to the
heathens to swear by the Emperor's genius, that is, his
damion; and that it was safer to forswear themselves by
the genius of Jupiter, than the genius of tbe Emperor.
Tertullian says,2 « Christians absolutely refused to swear
by this form, though they scrupled not to swear by the
Emperor's safety. But the heathen rebels were used to
swear by the Emperor's genius,3 at the same time that they
were plotting treason against him ;" which he frequently
retorts upon them, because they were used tocharge Chris
tians as traitors,* because they would not swear by the
Emperor's genius. The nature of this crime then, we see,
was plainly idolatry, and apostacy, in giving divine honour
to a daemon, instead of God, and thereby renouncing at
once the Christian religion. Whatever penalties therefore
were imposed on idolaters and apostates, the>ame we may
conclude to have been the punishment of those, who in times
of persecution complied with the demands of the heathen,
to swear by the Emperor's genius or daemon, which was to
give divine honour to creatures, and the worst of creatures,
the apostate angels, who were in professed rebellion
against God.
To swear by good angels, or saints, or the Virgin Mary,
or their images and relics, though it had a more specious
pretence, was not much short of the former vice. For all
divine worship being appropriated to God by the doctrine
of the Ancients ; and the taking of an oath being one solemn
act of that worship ; they were no more disposed to swear
by an angel or a saint than by the Emperor's genius, or any
other thing, that might reasonably- be interpreted a; confer
ring the honour of God upon the creature. Therefore Op
tatus objects it to the Donatists, as a great piece of inso-

1 Minuc. p. 89. Genium, id est, dsmonem ejus implorant; et est eis tu-
tiusper Jovis genium pejerare quam regis.
* Tertul. Apol. cap. xxxii. * Ibid. cap. xxxv. Unde
Cassii, et Nigri, et Albini? Omnes illi sub ipsa usque impietatis eruptione
et sacra faciebant pro salute imperatoris, et genium ejus dejerabant. It.
Lib. ad Scapulam. cap. ii. ? Tertul. ad N&-
tiones. ib. i. cap. 17.

CHAP. VII.j CHRISTIAN CHURCH. S\ i?
lence and impiety,1 " That whereas men ought to swear only
by God alone, Donatus suffered those of his party to swear
by himself as a God." And his successors as greedily em
braced this honour. For Optatus charges the same impi
ety upon them all in general :2 " The people swear by you,
and are now commonly known to put your persons in the
place of God. Men are used to name the name of God in
oaths to confirm their faith or veracity : but while they
swear by you, there is no mention of God or Christ among
your party. If divine religion be transplanted from heaven
to you, seeing men swear by your name, why do you not
assume the power of preventing all diseases in yourselves, and
those of your party % Let no one die : command the clouds :
rain, if you can : that men may swear more perfectly by
your name, ^nd take no notice of God. ' 0 Sacrilegium
Impietati commixtum, — 0 the sacrilege and impiety that
concurs together in your actions? whilst you willingly hear
men swear by your names, and let not the name of God be
once mentioned in your ears." He says further,3 " That
they were used to swear by their pretended martyrs, though
they were men that suffered for their crimes, and not for
the cause of religion, by which it is evident, that in the
time of Optatus, to swear by the name of a man, whether
living or dead, was reckoned no less a crime than sacrilege
and impiety, as transferring the honour of God upon the
creature. And' consequently, the same punishment, that
was due to sacrilege and impiety, must be supposed to be
the punishment of this crime in all those, that were guilty of
it; though weread of few besides these heretics in those days,.
that were disposed to run into it, till the worship of saints,
and angels, and the Virgin Mary, began to creep into the
Church ; and then together with that corruption came in

1 Optat. lib. iii. p. 65. Cum per solum Deum soleant homines jurare,
passus est homines per se sic jurare, tanquam per Deum.
8 Lib. ii. p. 58. Populus vester per vos juraut, et personas vestras jam pro
Deo habere noscuntur, &c. 3 Optat. lib. iii. p. 69.
Quos vos inter martyres ponitis, per quos, tanquam per unicam religionem,
vestra; communionis homines jurant.

320 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THK [BOOK XVI.
this other of joining the Virgin Mary, and the archangels
Michael and Gabriel, in the same oath with God. The form
of which sort of oaths, we have in one of Justinian's Novels,"
which obliges every governor of a province to take an oath
of allegiance, and an oath against bribery, or corrupt en
trance into his office, inthis.form: I swenr by God Almighty
and his only begotten son our Lord Jesus Christ,-and the Holy
Ghost, and the most holy glorious mother of God, and ever
Virgin Mary, and by the four Gospels, which I hold in my hand,
and by the holy archangels Michael and Gabriel, that I will
keep a pure conscience, and pay faithful and true allegiance to
their most sacred majesties Justinian and Theodora his con
sort, who put me into this office. And 1 swear by the same
oath, that I neither gave, nor will give, nor promised to
give any thing to any one 'whatsoever for his patronage or
assistance in procuring me this administration!*; but as I re
ceived it without bribery, so I will execute it with with pu
rity, being content with the public salary, that is appointed
me." The matter of this oath is exceeding good,, but it
must be confessed, the form of it is a deviation frOm the
purity and simplicity of former ages, when oaths were only
made in the name of God, as a speciality of divine worship
peculiarly belonging to him. This is. the first instance I
remember of any oath of this kind allowed in the Church:
and it serves to shew in how short a time corruptions may
gain ground by authority ; for that which was reputed sacri
lege and impiety in the time of Optatus, was now become
an instance of singular devotion to the archangels and the"
Virgin Mary. There are many other things might be noted
concerning oaths ; but here I only speak of such things, as
relate to the discipline of the Church.

1 Justin. Novel, ix. Juro ego per Deum Omnipotentem, et Filium ejus
Unigenitum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum,' et Spiritum Sanctum, et
per sanctam gloriosam Dei Genetricem et semper Virginem Mariam, et per
quatuor evangelia, qua? in manibus ineis teneo, et per sanctos archangelos
Michaelem et Gabrielem, puram conscientiam, germanumque servitium rae
servaturum sacratissimis nostris dominis Justiniano et Theodora; conjugi '
ejus, &c.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 321

Sect. 8. — Of Perjury, and its Punishment.
The next great crime, that might be committed against the
name and majesty of God, was perjury ; which might be
committed either at the time of taking the oath, by swearing
to a false thing, or swearing to do some wicked or un
lawful thing ; or else afterward, by not performing what a
man lawfully might, when he was solemnly engaged upon
oath to do it. He, that swore to do an unlawful thing, as
suppose to live in perpetual enmity with another man, and
never be reconciled to him, was by the Council of Lerida1
to be cast out of communion a whole year for his perjury,
and obliged to repent of his unlawful oath, and be recon
ciled to his brother. For in this case, as the Fathers and
Canons determine,2 the unlawful oath was not to be kept,
lest it should involve him, like Herod, in a double or triple
sin ; but he was to rescind his oath, and repent- of his per
jury, which was better than to add one sin to another,
under pretence of piety and religion. In this case the pe
nance was so much the shorter, because men were supposed
by some hasty passion to be involved rashly in this guilt, and
not by any settled consideration.
But in other cases, perjury in attesting a false thing, or
not performing a lawful oath, was more severely treated.
For Chrysostom reckons perjury in the same class with
murder, fornication, and adultery.3 And St. Basil imposes
eleven years penance upon those, that were guilty of it :*the
perjured person shall be a mourner two years, an hearer
three, ' a prostrator four, a co-stahder one. The first Coun-

1 Con. Ilerdens. can. vii. Qui Sacramento se obligaverit, ut litigans cum
quolibet, ad pacem nullo modo redeat, pro perjurib uno anno a. communione
sanguinis et corporis Dominici segregatus, reatum suum fletibus, eleeinosy-
nis, et quantis protuerit jejuniis absolvat.
2 Vid. Con. Tolet. viii. can. 2. Where the testimonies of St. Ambrose, St.
Austin, Gregory and Isidore, are cited at large tc this purpose. As also
in Gratian. Caus. xxii. Quaest. 4. 3 Chrys. Horn. xvii.
n Mat. p. 182. It. Horn. xXii. de Ira. torn. i. p. 294.
* Basil, can. lxiv.
VOL. VI. Y

322 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
oil of Mascon orders those1, that drew others into false wit
ness or perjury, to be cast out of communion to the hour of
death; and those, that were so drawn in, to be for ever after
incapable of giving testimony, and to be noted as infamous
persons according to the laws : meaning probably, the laws
of the state, as well as the laws of the Church. For, as
Gothofred shews at large, the Civil Law under the old Ro
mans, set the brand of infamy upon all such perjured per
sons ; and Honorius added several other penalties to give
new vigour to the ancient laws,2 and make them more effec
tual. I cannot here omit the relation, which Eusebius gives
of the divine vengeance pursuing three perjured villains,
who combined together to swear to a false accusation, which
they had plotted before hand against Narcissus, bishop of
Jerusalem ; because it shews, that when church discipline
cannot take effect for want of evidence against the criminal,
Providence is sometimes pleased to interpose, and revenge
this crime by an immediate divine judgment. " Three
men," he says,3 " who were afraid to be called in ques
tion by the bishop, and punished for their wicked lives, re
solved to be beforehand with him, by contriving and bring
ing an heavy accusation against him. And to gain credit
to their accusation before the Church, they each confirmed
it with a solemn oath. One of them washed, that if he
swore falsely, he might perish by fire ; another, that his
body might be consumed by some pestilential disease ; and
the third, that he might lose his eyes. The Church gave
no credit to their oaths, as knowing the bishop to be of a
clear and unblameable life : however, he being not able to
bear the calumny, and being otherwise of a long time de
sirous of a retired life, he thereupon withdrew into the wil
derness, leaving his Church, to live the life of an hermit.
But the great eye of justice did not thus suffer the matter to

1 Con. Matiscon.i. can. 17. Si quis convictus fuerit alios ad falsum
testimonium vel perjurium attraxisse, ipse quidem usque adexitufflnoncora-
niunicet: hiverd qui ei in perjurioconsensisse probantur, post ab omni sunt
teslimonio prohibendi, et secundum legem infamia notabuntur.
s Vid. Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. ix. de Pactis. leg. viii. Et Gothofred. in
Ldcuiii. 8 Euseb. lib. vi. cap. ix.

CHAP. VII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 323
rest, but presently revenged the miscreants with the curses
they had imprecated upon themselves. For the first by a
little spark of fire, that casually happened in his house, and
whereof no one could give any account, was in the night,
himself, family, and house, universally burnt to ashes; the
second was from the sole of the foot to the crown of his
head over-run and consumed by the same pestilential disease
which he had wished upon himself; and the third seeing
what had befallen the other two, and fearing the inevitable
vengeance of the all-seeing God, confessed the whole plot
and contrivance of the calumny, which they had formed .
And he testified his repentance with so deep a sorrow, that
with tbe multitude of his tears he lost his sight. Thus
these perjured wretches, were punished by the hand of God,
when ecclesiastical censure, for want of evidence, could not
touch them." Sect. 9.— Of Breach of Vows.
The last transgression of this commandment, that was
punished with ecclesiastical censure, was breach of vows,
or promises solemnly made to God. And this was
both in things and persons. If a man vowed to give
his estate, or any part of it, to the service of God ; it was
a breach of vow, including sacrilege, to retract it. Ananias
was severely censured for this, in such an extraordinary way
by the apostolical rod and' mouth of St. Peter, as, in St.
Basil's judgment,1 left him no room for repentance. The
Church in after ages could not punish such delinquents in
that extraordinary manner : but as every such breach of
vow was a piece of sacrilege, as well as perfidiousness and
perjury, we may be sure, the common penalties, that were
inflicted on those two crimes singly, were no less carefully
imposed on this crime, where they centered both in combi
nation. There was also a breach of vow, which concerned
the dedication of persons to God. The clergy were supposed

Basil. Horn, de Institut. Monach.
Y 2

32-1 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
to be more peculiarly God's inheritance, dedicating them
selves by a solemn act of their own voluntary choice to the
ministry of his Church : and therefore none ef this order were
allowed to desert their station, and turn seculars, again upon
the severest penalty of excommunication. As appears from
the rules of the general Council of Chalcedon,1 and the
Council of Tours.2 Which the laws of the state confirmed
by proper sanctions of a civil nature," ordering all such
deserters to be delivered up to the Curia of their city, to
serve there all their lives ; and to forfeit all such estates as
they were possessed of, to the Church or monastery, to which
they belonged. For the same penalties were inflicted on
monks and consecrated virgins and widows, who by any so
lemn vow had bid adieu to the world, and had betaken them
selves to the ascetic life. If after this they married and re
turned to a secular life ; though the Church did not annul
their marriage, under the notion of being adulterous, which
is now commonly done in the Romish communion, yet she
imposed a certain penance upon them as guilty of perfi
diousness and breach of vow. The Council of Chalcedon1
orders both monks and virgins to be excommunicated,
if they married after their solemn consecration and profes
sion. St. Basil says,5 they were to do the penance of forni
cators and adulterers. Not that he reckoned their marriage
fornication or adultery, but only to assign the term of their
penance. For as we have shewn elsewhere,6 out of St.
Austin,7 such marriages were never reputed adultery, but
true marriages, and therefore not annulled by any rule of
the ancient Church : though now by the authority of the
Council of Trent the contrary practice prevails in the Ro
mish Church, where all such marriages are reversed, and
the parties obliged to separate from one another.

1 Con. Chalced. can. vii. 2 Con. Turon. can. v.
5 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. fit. ii. de Episc. leg. xxxix. Cod. Justin. lib. i.
tit. iii. de Epise. leg. 55. Of which see more, Book vi. chap. iv. sect. I.
4 Con. Chalced. can. xvi. Vid. Con. Tolet. iv. can. 54. Leo. Ep. xcii.
adRnsticUm. c. xii. Con. Ancyr. can. xix. 6 Basil, can.lx.
e Book vii. chap. iii. sect. 23. » Aug. de Bono Vidui-
tatis. cap. x.

CHAP. VIII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 32-J

CHAP. VIII.
Of Sins against the Fourth Commandment, or Violations of
the Law enjoining the Religious Observation of the Lord's
Day.
Sect. 1. — Absenting from Religious Assemblies on the Lord's Day, how
punished by the Laws of the Church.
Something has already been noted concerning the reli
gious observation of the Lord's day in a former Book,1 and
more will be said hereafter, when we come to speak of the
festivals, of which this was always reckoned the principal in
the Christian Church. Here therefore our present subject
only requires us to remark such violations of the law en
joining the religious observation of the Lord's day, as made
men liable to ecclesiastical censure.
And first, it being a rule, that men should meet together,
to celebrate all divine offices in public on the Lord's day ;
the voluntary absenting from this service, either in whole,
or in part, was ever reputed a crime worthy of ecclesiastical
censure. To absent wholly, as heretics and schismatics
did, by a chosen separation, though they met in private con
venticles of their own, was esteemed such a violation of tho
law, as the Church thought fit to punish with the severest
censure of Anathema : as appears from several Canons of
the Council of Gangra,2 which having been related at length
before,3 1 need not here repeat them.
Secondly, if men, who were otherwise orthodox, neglec
ted for any considerable time to frequent the Church on the
Lord's day, this was a misdemeanour deserving to be cor
rected by a judicial suspension from the cummunion. This

1 Book xiii. chap, ix, sect. 1. * Con. Gangrcns. can. v. vi. vii. &c.
Book xvi. chap. i. sect. 5.

326 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
may be seen in the Canons of Eliberis,1 Sardica,2 and the
Council of Trullo,3 which for the same reason I forbear to
recite.
Sect. 2.— Of frequenting some Part of the Lord's Day Service, and neg
lecting the Rest.
Thirdly, to frequent some part of divine service on the
Lord's day, and neglect or withdraw from the rest, was in
those days a crime of a very high nature, and punishable
with excommunication. This is evident from those called
the Apostolical Canons, one of which orders,* " that all com
municants, who came to Church to hear the sermon and the
Scriptures read, but did not- stay to join in the prayers and
receive the eucharist, should be suspended, as authors of
confusion and disorder in the Church." The same is de
creed in the Council of Antioch in the same terms,5 and
under the same penalty. The Council of Eliberis forbids
the bishop to receive the oblations of such as did not com
municate.6 Which was in effect to exclude them from the
communion of the Church. And the first Council of
Toledo orders such as come to Church,7 but neglect to fre
quent the communion, to be admonished ; and if upon ad
monition they amend not, then to put them under public
penance, as great offenders. And another canon of the
same Council adds,8 " that if any present themselves to the
communion, and take the eucharist at the hands of the priest,
and yet forbear to eat it, they shall be driven out of the
ChuTch as sacrilegious persons." All these canons suppose,
what we have fully evinced in a former book,9 that the cele
bration of the eucharist was a standing part of divine service
every Lord's day ; and that every Christian communicant
1 Con. Eliber. can. xxi. 2 Con. Sardic can. xi.
" Con. Trull, can. lxxx. 1 Canon.
Apost. u. vii. 5 Con. Antioch. can. ii. 6 Con. Eliber. can. xxviii.
Episcopum, placuit, ab eo qui non communicat, munera accipere nondebere.
7 Con. Tolet. i. can. xiii. De his qui intrant in ecclesiam, et deprehendun-
tur nunquam communicare, admoneantur. Quod si non communicant, ad
poenitentiam accedant.
8 Ibid, can. xiv, Si quis autem acceptam a sacerdote eucharistiam non
sumpserit, velut oacrilcgus jiropellatur. » Book xv. chap. ix.

CHAP. VIIl.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 327
who was not under penance, was obliged to partake thereof*
to fulfil the duty he owed to God upon this day : and there
fore all such as neglected this part of divine worship, were
to be censured as transgressors, for contemning one princi
pal part of the religious observation of the Lord's day. I
cannot write this without lamenting the hard fate of many
pious persons in the present age, whose disposition would
incline them to be constant communicants every Lord's day,
but they want opportunity in the present posture of affairs
to execute their good designs. Such must content them
selves with that of the Apostle, " if there be first a willing
mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not
according to that he hath not ;" and in the mean time pray
to God to find out a method in his good providence to res
tore the ancient discipline and primitive fervour. But I
proceed.
Sect. 3. — Fasting on the Lord's Day prohibited under Pain of Excommu
nication.
It was an ancient and general custom in the primitive
Church, to keep the Lord's day as a festival, and day of
rejoicing, in memory of our Saviour's resurrection ; and
never to fast on that day, no not even in the time of Lent.
And therefore to fast perversely on this day was always re
puted a crime deserving ecclesiastical censure. Tertullian
says,1 " they counted it a crime to fast on the Lord's day."
And he remarks, " that even the Montanists, who were the
most rigid in observing their times of fasting, omitted both
Saturday and Sunday throughout the year.3 For though
they observed three lents, and two weeks of Xerophagia, or
dry meats, besides, yet they excepted the Sabbath or Satur
day, and the Lord's day from these laws of fasting." St.
Ambrose likewise tells us,3 " that the Catholics were used

1 Tertul. de Coron. Mil. cap. iii. Die Dominico jejunare nefas ducimus.
s Id de Jejun. adversus Psychicos. cap. xv. Duas in anno hebdomadas
xerophagiarum, nee totas, exceptis scilicet sabbatis et dominicis, Deo oHe-
rimus. 8 Ambros. de Elia et Jejunio. cap. x. Quadragesiinae
totis, prater sabbatum et dominicam, jejunatur diebus.

328 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
to except these two days in their Lent fasts. They never
fasted on the Lord's day, but thought they had reason to
condemn the Manichees for so doing t1 for to appoint that
day to be a fast day, was in effect to disbelieve the resurrec
tion of Christ." Several other heretics besides the Mani
chees, were condemned for this practice by the first Council
of Braga :9 they particularly name the Cerdonians, Marcio-
nites and Priscillianists, whom they anathematise upon this
account, as fasting On the day of Christ's nativity and the
Lord's day, because they did this in derogation to the truth
of Christ's human nature. Pope Leo notes the Priscillianists3
upon the same account.* And the fourth Council of
Carthage censures them as no Catholics, who choose to
fast upon this day. St. Austin not only says,s that it was
the custom of the whole Catholic Church, to abstain
from fasting on this day, but that no one could do
otherwise without giving great scandal to the Church,
because the impious Manichees had chosen this day
particularly to fast upon in opposition to the Church."
Upon these grounds and reasons the canons are very severe
in their censures of such transgressors. " If any one fast
on the Lord's day," says the Council of Gangra,7 " though
it be under pretence of leading an ascetic life, let him be
anathema." In like manner the Apostolical Canons,8 " if
any clergyman fast on the Lord's day, or sabbath, one only
excepted, viz. the sabbath before Easter, let him be deposed.
If he be a layman, let him be cast out of the communion of

1 Ambr. Ep. lxxxiii. Dominica jejunare non possumus, quia Maniclnsos
etiain ob istius diei jujunia jure damnamus. Hoc enim est in resurrectio-
ncm Christi non credere, si quis legem jejunii die resurrectionis indicat.
2 Con. BracEi-. i. can. 4. Si quis natale Christi secundum carnem non
vere honoret, sed honorare se simulat, jejunans in eodem die et in dominico;
quia Christum in vera hominis natura non credit, sicut Cerdon, Marcion,
Manichacus, ct Priscillianus, anathema sit.
3 Leo" Ep. xciii. ad Turbium. cap. iv. 4 Con. Carth. iv. can. 64.
Qui Dominico die studiose jejunat, non credatur catholicus.
6 Aug. Ep. 119. ad Januar. cap. xv. 6 Aug. Ep lxxxvi. ad Casulan.
1 Con. Gangrcn. can. xviii. El' 7ic oid .vajut,ojx'ivi)v aaKiiaiv iv ry KvpiaKij
i/ijotuoi, nvaSffin tTw. 8 Canon. Apoost. lxiv.

CHAP. VIII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 329
the Church." And this is repeated in tbe Council of Trullo,1
and other rules of the ancient Church.
Sect. 4.— Frequenting the Theatre and other Shows and Pastimes on this
Day, how punished.
There were many other rules made by the Ancients for the
decent observation of the Lord's day : as, that men should
abstain from all unnecessary bodily labour ; that all lawsuits
and pleadings and prosecutions should cease upon this day ;
that divine service should be performed standing, in memory
of our Saviour's resurrection : but as the tiangressions of
these rules are not usually .mentioned with the same commi-
nation of ecclesiastical punishments, the consideration of
them belongs not to this head, but shall be reserved for its
proper place, under the title of festivals, where the observa
tion of the Lord's day will come again more particularly to
be considered. But there is one thing more that must not
here be omitted : which is, that when men neglected the
public service of God, to follow vain sports and pastimes on
this day, this was thought a crime worthy to be corrected
by the severest censures of the Church. The imperial laws
forbad all public games and shows on this day. Theodosius
the Great speaks of two laws made by himself to this pur
pose.2 And Theodosius junior made another,3 wherein he
not otily forbids the exhibiting of the shows on the Lord's
day, but on the other great festivals, the Nativity, Epiphany,
Easter, and Pentecost. But no penalties being annexed to
these laws, there was still occasion for the laws of the

'Con. Trull, can.lv. Vid. Con. Caesar-august, c. ii.
* Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. 5. de Spectaculis. leg. ii. Illud etiam praemo-
nemus, ne quis in legem nostram, quamdudum tulimus, committat : nullus
solis die populo spectaculum praebeat, nee divinam venerationem confectS.
solennitate confundat. 3 Ibid. leg. v. Dominico, qui septimanae
totius primus est dies, et natale, atque epiphaniorum Christi, Paschas etiam
et Quinquagesimai diebus — omni theatrorum atque circensium voluptate
populis denegata, totae Christianoru"m ac fidelium mentes Dei cultibus occu-
pantur, &c. Vid. Cod. Justin, lib. iii. tit. 18. de Feriis. leg. xi. Leonis et
Anthemii.

330 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOok XVI.
Church to restrain men by ecclesiastical censures. And
therefore the canons made this crime to be noted as an hei
nous offence, and punished the transgressors with excom
munication. "If anyone on a solemn day, " says the
fourth Council of Carthage,1 " leave the solemn assembly
of the Church, to go to the shows, let him be excommuni
cated." And another canon excommunicates those, who
leave the Church, whilst the bishop is preaching.2 The
fifth Council of Carthage, as it is related in the African
Code,3 petitioned the Emperor Honorius to forbid all thea
trical shows on the Lord's day and all the great festivals.
St. Chrysostom calls them* " Saraviica aw&pia, the conven
tions ofsatan," and tells his auditory, " he would no longer
use gentle remedies, but styptics and caustics, to put a
stop to the raging distemper. They that continued in this
crime after this formal admonition, should be no longer en
dured, but feel the weight of the ecclesiastical laws, and
learn thereby not to contemn the divine oracles." By which
it is evident, that though the games and pastimes of the
circus and the theatre were still allowed under the Christian
emperors, yet they were precisely forbidden on the Lord's
day : and to frequent them at that time, was one of those
great transgressions, for which men felt the heaviest cen
sures of the Church.

1 Con. Carth iv. can. 88. Qui die solenni pratermisso solenni ecclesiae
conventu, ad spectacula vadit, excommunicetur.
s Ibid. can. xxiv. Sacerdote verbum faciente in ecclesia, qui deauditorio
egressus fuerit, excommunicetur. 3 Cod. Afric. can. lxi.
* Chrys. Horn. vi. in Gen. torn. ii. p. 53.

CHAP. IX.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 331

CHAP. IX.
Of great Transgressions against the Fifth Commandment,
Disobedience to Parents, and Masters; Treason and
Rebellion against Princes; and Contempt of the Laws
of the Church.
Sect. 1.— Children not to desert their Parents under Pretence of Religion.
The Censure of such as taught otherwise.
Under the name of parents is commonly understood not
only the natural parents, but also the political or civil, that
is, magistrates and rulers; as also spiritual parents, that is,
the governors of the Church ; and ceconomical parents, that is,
masters of families ; whose authority respectively over their
children, subjects, people, and servants being very great,
it was thought proper to secure it not only by the laws of
the state, but also by the laws and spiritual censures of the
Church. Children by the old Roman law were esteemed so much
the property and possession of their parents, that they had
power of life and death over them;1 and also might sell
them to be slaves without redemption,3 in cases of extreme
necessity for their own maintenance, as appears from several
laws in both the codes ; and the complaints made by the
Ancients of this hardship ;3 and the allusion, which our
Saviour makes in the parable to the like custom among the
Jews ; Mat. xviii, where the Lord commands his debtor to

1 Cod. Justin, lib. viii. tit. 47. de Patria Potestate. leg. x. Patribus jus
vitae in liberos necisque potestas olim erat perraissa.
5 Cod. Theod. lib. lib. iii. tit. 3. De Patribus qui filios distraxerunt. leg. i.
et lib. v. tit. 6. De his qui sanguinolentos emptos acceperint. Et. lib. xi.
tit. 27. Dealimentis qurc inopes parentes de publico petere debent. leg i. et
ii. It. Valentin. Novel, xi. s Vid. Basil. Horn, in Psal. xiv. torn. i.
p. 141.

332 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
be sold, and his wife and children and all that he had, and
payment to be made. And though the laws of Christian
emperors a little restrained this exhorbitant power of parents ;
taking from them the power of life and death ; and allowing
children to be maintained out of the public revenue, to
prevent being sold j1 or to be redeemed again, if sold: yet
still they left a considerable power in the hands of parents
to dispose of their children, whilst they were minors or under
age, only excepting the cases of slavery and death. For
till the time of Justinian, children were not allowed to be
take themselves to a monastic life without or against the
consent of their parents. Which is evident from the rule of
St. Basil,2 which forbids children to be reeeived into monas
teries, unless they were offered by their parents, if their
parents were alive. And the Council of Gangra lays an
heavy penalty upon them :3 " if finy children under pretence
of religion forsake their parents, and give them not the
honor due unto them, let them be Anathema." This doc
trine was taught and propagated by the Eustathian heretics,
who also taught, that women might leave their husbands,
and parents desert their children, and take no further care
of them, under the same pretence of betaking themselves
to a monastic life. Against whom the same Council made
several other canons,* imposing the like penalty upon them.
Sect. 2. — Children not to marry without Consent of their Parents,
Another branch of paternal power was the right, which
parents had to dispose of their children in marriage: which
right was so carefully guarded by the imperial laws, that
we scarce find any crime so severely revenged, as the viola
tion of it, when children, who were under their parents'
power, married without, or against the consent of their
parents, or such guardians and tutors as were in the room
of them. Witness that famous law of Constantine in the

1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xv. De his qui parentes vel liberos occiderunl.
Lege unica. Et lib. xi. tit. xxvii. leg. i. et ii. " Babil. Rcgul.
Major, q. xv. s Con. Gangrirn. can. xvi.
1 Ibid. can. xiii. xh . xv.

CHAP. IX.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 333
Theodosian Code,1 which runs in these terms : " if any one,
without first obtaining the consent of parents, steal a virgin
against her will, or carry her off by her own consent, hoping
that her consent will protect him ; he shall have no benefit
from such consent, as the ancient laws have determined ;
but the virgin herself shall be held guilty, as partaker in
the crime. If any nurse be instrumental or accessary to
the fact, by her persuasions, which often defeat the parents
care, her detestable service shall be revenged by pouring
molten lead into her mouth, that ministered such wicked
counsels. If the virgin be detected to have given her con
sent, she shall be punished with the same severity as the
raptor himself : seeing, she that is stolen away against her
will, is not suffered to go unpunished ; because she might
have kept herself at home ; or if she was taken by violence
out of her father's house, she should have cried out for help
to the neighbourhood, and used all means possible to defend
herself. But on such we impose only a lighter punishment,
denying them the right of succeeding to their father's inheri
tance. But the raptor himself, being clearly convicted,
shall have no benefit of appeal. If parents who are chiefly
concerned to prosecute tfiis crime, connive at it, they shall
be banished. All, who are partners or assistants to the
raptor, shall be liable to the same punishment without dis
tinction of sex. And if any such be slaves, they shall be
burnt alive." This law of Constantine's is confirmed by
another law of his son Constans : only with this difference,2
that whereas Constantine's law ordered the criminals to be
burnt alive, or thrown to the wild beasts, as Gothofred
interprets it ; this of Constans so far moderated the punish-

1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xxiv. De raptu virginum et viduarum leg. i.
Si quis nihil cum parentibus puellae ante depect.'.s, invitam eam rapuerit,
vel volentem abduxerit  nihil ei secundum jus vetus profit puellae res-
ponsio, sed ipsa puella potius societate criminis obligetur, &c.
3 Cod. Theod. ibid. leg. ii. Quamvis legis prioris extet auctoritas, qua
inclitus paternoster contra raptores atrocissime jusserat vindicari, tamen
nos tantummodo capitalem pcenam constituimus; videlicet, ne sub specie
atrocioris judicii aliqua in ulciscendo crimine dilatio nasceretur. In auda-
¦ciam vero servilem dispari supplicio mensura legum impendenda est, ut
perqrendi snbjiciantur ignibus.

334 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
ment, as to let it be only a common death, that it might
more duly be put in execution. Yet if any slaves were con
cerned in aiding the raptors in such attempts, they were still
to be burnt alive, according to the tenor of the former law.
By another law of Valentinian1 and Gratian, widows are
not allowed to marry a second time without the consent of
their parents, if they were under the age of twenty-five
years, although they were sui juris, and enjoyed the liberty
of emancipation. And there are many other laws in both
the codes,2 to the same purpose The ecclesiastical laws in
this concur with the civil law. St. Austin says expressly,5
" that mothers as well as fathers have this right in their
children, to dispose of them in marriage, unless they he of
that age, which gives them liberty to choose for themselves."
Tertullian says the same,* " that children cannot lawfully
marry without the consent of their earthly parents." St. Basil*
in one of his Canons gives directions, that they, who stole vir
gins, should be treated as fornicators, that is, do four years
penance ; and when the virgins were restored to their
guardians, it was at their discretion, whether they would
give them in marriage to the raptors or not. In another
Canon he says,6 "If slaves marry without the consent of their
masters, or children without the consent of their parents;
it is not matrimony, but fornication, till they ratify it by their
consent." Again,7 " If virgins, who are under the power of
their parents, marry without their consent, they are to be
treated as harlots. If their parents are afterwards recon
ciled to them, and give their consent, yet they shall do three
years penance for their first transgression." And again,8

> Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. 7. de Nuptiis. leg. i. Vidua; intra xxv. annum
degentes, etiamsi emancipationis libertate gaudeant, tamen in secundas nup
tias non sine patris sententia conveniant. * Vid. Cod. Theod.
ibid. leg. iii. Cod. Justin, lib. v. tit. 4. de Nuptiis. leg. i, ii, vii, xx. Justin.
Instit. lib. i. tit. x. de Nuptiis. a Aug. Ep. 233. ad Benenatum.
Matris voluntatem in tradenda filia omnibus, ut arbitror, natura pneponit,
nisi eadem puella in e& jam aetate fuerit, ut jure licentiori sibi ipsi eligat
quid velit. * Tertul. ad Uxor. lib. ii. cap. ix. Nam nee in terris
hln sine consensu patrum rite et jure nubent. e Basil, can. xxii.
« Ibid. can. xiii. ' Ibid. can. xxxviii. Et ap Mathaeum Monach. Re'spoM.
Mammon, in Jure Gr. Rom. Lewiclavii. p. 500. b Basil, call> xi.

CHAP. IX.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 335
" If a slave marry without the consent of her master, she
differs nothing from an harlot. For contracts, made without
the consent of those, under whose power they are, have no
validity, but are null. And therefore, though the master
afterward give his consent, and make the marriage good,
yet the first fault shall be punished as fornication."
Sect. 3. — Nor Slaves without the Consent of their Masters.
It appears from two of these last mentioned canons, that
slaves were as much under the power of their masters, as
children were under their parents : and therefore it was
equally a crime for a slave to marry without the consent of
the master, as for a child to do it without consent of parents.
And for the same reason a slave was not allowed either to
enter himself into a monastary, or take orders, without the
consent of his master, as has been shewn in other places,1
because this was io deprive his master of his legal right of
service, which by the original state and condition of slaves
was his due : and the Church would not be accessary to
such frauds and injustice, but rather discourage them by
prohibitions and suitable penalties laid upon them.
SccT. 4. — The Punishment of Treason and Disrespect to Princes.
Another sort of parents, whose honour was intended to be
secured by this command, were the political parents, patres
patrice, kings and emperors, whose authorityand majesty was
reputed sacred and supreme next under God. And therefore
all disloyalty and disrespect shewed to them, either in word
or action, was always severely chastised by the laws of the
Church. I need not here suggest what civil penalties were
inflicted by the laws of the state upon transgressors in this
kind, because the ancient Civil Codes are full of them under
several titles, which the learned reader may consult
at his own leisure, such as speaking evil of dig
nities ;2 counterfeiting their letters ;3 corrupting or counter-

1 BooU.iv. chap. iv. sect. 3. Book vii. chap. iii. sect. 2.
2 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 4. Si quis imperatori maledixerit. leg. i.
" Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 19. ad Legem Corneliam de Falso. leg. iii.

336 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
feiting their coin ;• consulting augurs or astrologers about
the term of their life,3 or using any curious arts to
know who should be their successor ; raising of tumults3
to the disturbance of the public discipline ; conspiring
against their lives,* or government; bearing arms5 with
out their authority ; and the like crimes, which come
under the general names of sedition, treason, conspiracy,
and rebellion, which were always excepted in those
general indulgences,6 that the Emperors were wont to grant
at Easter to other criminals. I need not say further, that the
contempt of the imperial laws was usually reputed a sort of
sacrilege by the laws themselves,7 and punished under that
title. That, which I am chiefly concerned to remark here, is
the ecclesiastical punishment of disloyalty and treason, and
all scandalous contempt of civil government ; against which
sort of crimes, whether in word or deed, the Ancients shewed
great resentment. For the first three hundred years they
gloried greatly over the Heathens in this, that though the
emperors were Heathens, and some of them furious perse
cutors of the Christians, yet there were never any seditious
or disloyal persons to be found among the persecuted
Christians. " You defame us," says Tertullian,8 " with
treason against the Emperor, and yet never could any Al-
binians, Nigrians, or Cassians, (persons that had taken arms
against the Emperors,) be found among the Christians. —
Such as those, are they that swear by the Emperor's Genii,
that have offered sacrifice for their safety, that have often
1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xxi. de Falsa Moneta. tit. xxii. Siquis solidi clr-
culum incident, vel adulteratum subjecerit. tit. xxiii. Si quis pecunias con-
flaverit, &c. 9 Ibid. tit. 16. de Malefic, et. Mathemat. leg. viii.
8 Ibid. tit. xxxiii. de iis qui plebem audent contra publicam colligere
disciplinam. » Ibid. tit. 5. ad Legem Juliam
Majestatis. tit. vi. Ne praeter crimen majestatis servus dominum accuset.
tit. xiv. ad legem Corneliam de sicariis. tit; xl. de Pcenis. leg. xv, xvi. xvii.
lib. xv. tit. xiv. de Infirmandis his quae sub tyrannis gesta sunt.
6 Ibid. lib. xv. tit. 14. Ut armorum usus inscio principe interdictus sit.
6 Ibid. lib. x. tit. 38. de Indulgentiis Criminum.
7 Ibid. lib. vi. tit. v. leg. 2. Sit plane sacrilegii reus qui divina prae-
cepta neglexerit. it. tit. 24. de Domesticis leg. iv. et et tit. 35. de Privilegiis
Militum Palatinor. leg. 13. & passim alibi. 8 Tertul. ad Scapul.
cap. 2.

CHAP. IX.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 337
condemned Christians ; these are the men, that are found
enemies to the Emperors. A Christian is no man's enemy,
much less the Emperor's; knowing him to be the ordinance
of God, he cannot but love, revere, and honour him, and
desire, that he and the whole Roman Empire may be in
safety to the end of the world. We worship the Emperor
as much as is either lawful or expedient, as one that is next
to God ; we sacrifice for his safety, but it is only to his and
our God ; and in such manner as he has commanded, only
by holy prayer. For the great God needs no blood or sweet
perfumes : these are the banquets and repast of devils,
whom we not only reject, but expel at every turn." For
this reason, during this interval, there was no need of eccle
siastical punishments to correct traitors against the civil
government, because there were no such among Christians.
But when the whole world was become Christian, there was
occasion for such laws to be made against sedition and trea
son. And then we find several canons to prevent or correct
it. The fourth Council of Carthage forbids the ordination
of any seditious persons,1 as those, that would be a scandal
to the profession. And this is repeated in the same Words
by the Council of Agde.2 The fourth Council of Toledo3
orders all clergymen, that took arms in any sedition, to be
degraded from their order, and to be confined to a monastery,
to do penance there all their lives. The fifth Council of
Toledo mentions an oath of allegiance,* which in a former
general Council of all Spain, was appointed to be taken by
all the subjects to the king and his heirs : and a most severe
anathema is pronounced against all, that should violate any
part of it. Particularly they excommunicate and anathema-

1 Con. Carth. iv. can. 67. Seditionarios nunquam ordinandos clericos>
sicut nee usurarios, nee injuriarum suarum ultores.
2 Con. Agathen. c. lxix. 3 Con. Tolet. iv. can. 4-1. Clerici, qui
in quacunque seditione arma volentes sumpserint, aut suinpserunt, reperti,
amisso ordinis sui gradu, in monasterium eontradantur pcenitentia;.
* Con. Tolet. v. can. 2. Sit anathema in Christianorum omnium costv., atque
superno condemnetur judicio : Sit eXprobrabilis omnibus Catholicis, et
abominabilis Sanctis angelis in ministerio Dei constitutis : sit in hoc saeculo
perditu.s, et in futuro condemnatus, qui tam rects provisioni noluit praebere
consensum. VOL. VI. Z

338 THK ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
tize all that should pretend to usurp the throne,' without the
consent of the nobility and the whole Gothic nation ; all
that should make any curious and unlawful inquiries about
the fatal period of the life of the prince f all that should
speak evil of him: for it is written, " thou shalt not speak
evil of the ruler of thy people." If railers shall not inherit
the kingdom of God,3 how much rather ought such contem
ners of the divine law, to be cast out of the Church ]-r-
Finally, they made an order,* that in every Council held in
Spain, this decree concerning allegiance due to princes
should be read, when all other things were done, to the end
that no one might be unmindful of his duty and obligations
to the sovereign power. And accordingly, we find the same
decree repeated and confirmed in several other Councils of
that nation.* Sect. 5. — Of Contemners of the Laws of the Church.
The last sort of parents, to whom honour and obedience
is due, are the spiritual parents, or governors of the Church ;
the contempt of whose laws and rules made for the good
government, order, and edification of the Church, was
always thought a matter worthy of ecclesiastical censure.
There are innumerable instances of this in the acts and canons
of the ancient Councils : I shall content myself with rebting
two or three, which concern matters purely of ecclesiastical
observation. The Council of Antioch excommunicates all
those," who pertinaciously oppose the rule made about Easter
in the Council of Nice. The first Council of Carthage
more generally censuresall opposers of ecclesiastical orders :'
" If any one viciously transgress or contemn the decrees of
the Church ; if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated;
if a clergyman, let him be deprived of the honour of his
order." The Council of Epone in like manner concludes9

1 Con. Tolet. v. can. iii. s Ibid. can. iv. 8 Ibid. can. v.
* Ibid. can. vii. 4 Con. Tolet. vi. can. xvii., et xviii. Tolet. xii. can.
1. Tolet. x. can. ii. 6 Con. Antioch. can. i. 7 Con. Carth.
can. xiv. Si quis statuta supergressus corruperit, vel pro nihilo habenda
putaverit, si laicus est, communione : si clericus est, honore privetur.
* Con. Epaunens. can. xl. Si quis sanctorum antistituni qui statuta prases-

CHAP. X.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 339
her decrees with this sanction. " If any one disorderly
transgress the rules and observations, which the holy bishops
have made in this present Council, and confirmed with their
subscriptions, let him know, that he shall be liable to the
judgment both of God and the Church." The fourth Council
of Toledo orders such,1 as reject the use of the hymns and
prayers appointed by the Church, to be punished with ex
communication. And King Reccaredus in the third Council
of Toledo,2 besides excommunication, orders a civil penalty
of confiscation and banishment to be inflicted on such as
proudly contemned the rules then made in Council, and
refused to yield obedience to them. And laws of the same
import occur everywhere both in the civil and ecclesiastical
Codes, so that I need not trouble the learned reader with
any more of them, having suggested these few as a specimen
of that obedience, which was required to be paid to the laws
and authority of the Church under the penalty of excommu
nication.

CHAP. X.
Of great Transgressions against the sixth Commandment,
Murder, Manslaughter, Parricide, Self-Murder , Dis
membering the Body, causing Abortion, fyc.
Sect. 1. — Murder ever reckoned a capital and unpardonable Crime by the
Laws of the State.
We are now come to the great sin of murder, which the
civil laws always reckon among those called Atrocia Delicta

tia subscriptionibus propriis flrmaverunt, relicta integritate, observationes
excesserit, reum se divinitatis pariter et fraternitatis judicio futurum esse
cognoscat. 1 Con. Tolet. iv. can. 12. Sicut orationes, ita et hymnos in laudem Dei
compositos, nullus nostrflm ulterius improbet, sed pari modo in Gallicia His-
paniSquo celebrent, excommunicatione plectendi, qui hymnos reji cere fuerint
ausi. » Edict Beccaredi ad calcem. Con. iii. Toletani.
z 2

340 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI
and Atrocissima Crimina, those heinous and capital crimes,
for which they neither allowed pardon nor appeal after clear
conviction. This crime was always excepted in those in
dulgences or. general pardons,1 which the Emperors granted
to criminals upon the aecount of their children's birth-days,
or the annual returns of the Easter-festival, or any the like
occasion. And whereas many other criminals were allowed
the benefit of appealing, this was wholly denied to
murderers;2 nor might any such criminals anciently pretend
to shelter themselves by taking sanctuary in the Church,
which is expressly provided by a law of Justinian,3 determin
ing who may or may not take refuge in the Church ; where
among those, to whom this privilege is denied, murderers
adulterers, and ravishers of virgins are particularly recounted.
Sect. 2. — How punished by the Laws of the Church.
By the most ancient laws of some Churches, murderers seem
to have been subjected to a perpetual penance all their lives,
and by some denied communion even at the hour of death.
Tertullian says plainly,* that neither idolaters nor murderers
were admitted to the peace of the Church. And that he
means not here, by the Church, his own sect of the Mon
tanists, but the Catholic Churches, is concluded by learned
men from hence,5 that he is arguing with the Catholies)
that they ought to deny adulterers the peace of the Church,
by the same reason arid rule, that they denied it to idolaters
and murderers. Which implies at least, that some Catholic
Churches in Afric refused to admit murderers to communion.
Which is the more probable from what Cyprian says of some
of his predecessors,5 " That they were used to deny fornica-
1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 38. de lndulgentiis Criminum. leg. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9.
5 Cod. Th. lib. xi. tit. 36. Quorum appellationes non recipiendffi. leg. i.—
Cum homicidam, vel maleficum, vel veneficum (quae atrocissima crimina sunt)
eonfossio propria, &c. detexeiit, provocationes suscipi non oportet. It leg. 7-
ibid. s Justin. Novel. -xvii. cap. 7. * Tertul. de Pudicit-
cap. xii. Neque idololatriae neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur.
* Vid. Albaspin. Observat. lib. ii. c. xv. p. 123. 6 Cypr- Ep. Iii-
at. 55. ad Antonian. p. 110. Apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis
istic in provincifi nostrfi dandam pacem mcechis non putaverunt, et in totum,
pceaitentia; locum contra adulteria clauserunt, &c.

CHAP. X.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 341
tors and adulterers the peace of the Church, though they
did not upon this break communion with others, that admitted
them." Now murder, being as great a crime as adultery, it
is likely tbey rejected murderers as well as adulterers utterly
from their. communion. In the following ages the term of
their penance was a little moderated. For the Council of
Ancyra obliges them only to do penance all their lives,1 and
allows them to be received at the hour of death. Other
canons reduce their penance to a certain term of years,. St.
Basil appoints the wilful murderer twenty years penance f
four years as a mourner ; five years as an hearer ; seven years
as a prostrator ; four years as a co-stander only, to hear the
prayers without receiving the communion.
Sect. 3. — The Heinousuess of Murder when joined with other Crimes, such
as Idolatry, Adultery, and magical Practices.
Yet in some cases the discipline continued still to be more
severe against murder, when it happened to be complicated
with other great crimes, such as idolatry, adultery, and the
practice of magical and diabolical arts against the Uves of
men : because these were great aggravations to inflame the
account of murder. Thus in tbe Council of Eliberis,3 " If
any Christian took upon him the office of an heathen Fla
men, and therein sacrificed and committed adultery and
murder ; (which might be done either directly, by a per
sonal commission of those crimes ; or indirectly by exhibit.
ing the games and shews, wherein adultery and murder
were committed by their authority and concurrence ; in such
a ease he was to be denied communion even at the hour of
death, because he had doubled and tripled his crime, as the
canon words it." So again,* " if any one used pharmacy or

1 Con. Ancyr. can. xxii. It. Con. Epaunens. can. xxxi. * Basil
can. Ivi. 3 Con. Eliber. can. ii. Flamines qui post fidem Javacri
et regenerationis sacrificaverunt : Eo quod geminaverint scelera, accedente
homicidio, vel triplicaverint facinus, cohaerente inoechia, placuit eos nee iu
fine accipere communionem. * Con. Eliber. can. vi. Si quis
maleficio interficiat alterum, eo quod sine, idololatria periiceru scelus nun
potuit, ncc in line impertiendain esse illi communionem.

342 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
magical art to kill another, he was not to be received into
communion even at the hour of death, because here was a
conjunction of idolatry with murder." In like manner ano-
Iher canon of the same Council orders,1 " that if a woman
conceive by adultery, in the absence of her husband, and
after that murder her child, she shall be rejected to the very
last, because she has doubled her crime." But the Council
of Ancyra is a little more favourable in the case of simple
fornication joined with murder. For it is there observed,8
that if a woman committed fornication, and murdered her
infant, or caused abortion, she should only do ten years pe
nance, though by former canons she was obliged to do pe
nance all her life. The Council of Lerida appoints seven
years penance for common murder ;3 but if it be done by sor
cery, then it was penance for the whole life.
Sect. 4. — Causing of Abortion condemned and punished as Murder.
And here we may observe, that causing of abortion was
esteemed one species of murder, and accordingly punished
as such, when wilfully procured. So it is determined not
only in the fore-mentioned canon of Ancyra, but in the
canons of St. Basil,* " Letherthat procures abortion, under
go ten years penance,whether the embryo be perfectly formed
or not," So again, " they are murderers, who take medicines
to procure abortion." And so the Council of Trullo :5 " they,
who give medicines to cause abortion, and they, who take per
nicious physic to destroy the embryo in' the womb, are to un
dergo the penance of murderers." The Council of Lerida puts
those, who destroy the conception in the womb by certain
potions,6 into the same class with those, that kill infants after,

1 Con. Eliber. can. 63. Si qua per adulterum, absente marito, conceperit,
idque post facinus Occident, placuit neque in fine dandam esse communio
nem, eo quod geminaverit scelus. * Con. Ancyr. can. xxi.
8 Con. Ilerden. can. ii. Ipsis autem veneficis in exitu tantum communio
tribuatur. * Basil, can. ii. and viii.
*Con. Trull, can. 91. 6 Con. Ilerden. can. ii. Hi vero qui
male conceptos ex adulterio faetus, vel editos necare studuerint, vel in uteris
matrum potionibus aliquibus colliserint in utroque sexu adulteris, post septem
annorum curricula communio tribuatur.

CHAP. X.j CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 343
they are born ; and appoints a course of seven years penance
for both sorts, as joining murder to adultery. Theprivate
writers among the Ancients with one consent declare this to
be murder. " In the prohibition of murder," says Tertullian,1
" We are forbidden to destroy the conception in the womb,
whilst the blood is in its first formation of an human body.
To hinder that, which might be born, is but an anticipation
or hastening of murder : and it is all one, whether a man
destroy that life, which is already born, or disturb that,
which is preparing to be born. He is a man, who is in a
disposition to be a man, and all fruit is now in its
seed or principle of existence." This he says in answer
to the heathen objection, who charged the Christians
with feasting upon the blood of an infant in their sa
cred mysteries. Minueius inverts the charge upon the hea
then, telling them,2 '•' it was their own practice by medicated
potions to destroy man, that would be, in his first original,
and for mothers to commit parricide before they brought
forth." -" But as for Christians," says Athenagoras, writing
in their behalf, " How should they be guilty of murdering
men, who declare, that mothers, who use medicines to cause
abortion, are murderers, and must give account of their
wickedness unto God." St. Jerom calls this crime in wo
men,* " drinking of barrenness, and murdering of infants
before they were born." And it was a crime, which the old
Roman law punished with banishment,6 and sometimes with

1 Tertul. Apol. cap. ix. Nobis homicidio semel interdicto, etiam concep-
tum utero, dum adhuc sanguis in hominem delibatur, dissolvere non licet.
Homicidii festinatio est, prohibere nasci : nee refert natam quis eripiat ani
mam, an nascentem disturbet: homo est, et qui est futurus, et fructus omnia
jam in semine est. 9 Minuc. p. 91. Sunt quae in ipsis
visceribus medicaminibus epotis originem futuri nominis (leg. hominis) ex-
tinguant, et parricidium faciant, antequam pariant. Vid. Cypr. Ep. xlix.
al. 52. ad Cornel, p. 97. de Parricidio Novati.
8 Athenag. Legat. p. 38. * Hieron. Ep. xxii.
ad Eustoch. de Virginit. cap. v. Aliae pra:bebunt sterilitatem, et necdum
sati homic.idium faciunt. 4 Digest, lib. xlviii. tit. 8. ad
Legem Corneliam de Sicariis. leg. 8. Si mulierem visceribus suis vim intu-
lisse, quo partum tbigeret, constiterit: Earn in exilium praeses provinciae
exiget. It. lib. xlvii. tit. 11. de Extraordinar. Criminibus. leg. 4.

344 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
deaths as Tryphonius, the lawyer, observes out of Tully ;
though Tertullian complains, that these laws were very
much neglected and contemned. However we see in the
Christian Church this sort of murder was reckoned a very
heinous crime by all writers, and punished with great seve
rity by the canons against wilful murder in the Church.
Sect. 5.— The Punishment of Parricide.
Indeed, this sort of murder was one species of parricide,
which included not only the murder of parents, but of chil
dren, and other relations, to whom men were bound by na
tural affection. And this had a noted and peculiar punish
ment among the old Romans, which was to tie up the par
ricide in a sack with a serpent, an ape, a cock, and a dog,
and throw them all alive into the sea ; of which Gothofred
will furnish the curious reader with great variety of instances
out of the old Roman laws and writers. The Lex Pompeia
changed this punishment into that of the sword, or burning,
or throwing to wild beasts. But Constantine reduced the
ancient punishment ; and from his law,2 which I shall tran
scribe, we may take the account and description of it." If
any one hasten the fate of his parent, or son, or any the like
relation, which goes under the name of parricide, whether he
attempt it privately or publicly, he shall not be punished
with the sword, or with fire, or with any other common death,
but be sewed up in a sack with serpents and other beasts,
and be cast into the sea or a river, as the nature of the

1 Digest, lib. xlviii. tit. xix. leg. xxxix. Cicero in Oratione pro Clu-
entio scripsit, mulierem quod ab heredibus secundis accepts pecunia par-
tum sibi medicamentis ipsa abegisset, rei capitalis esse damnatam.
s Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 15. de Parricidio. leg. i. Si quis in parentis, aut
filii, aut omnino affectionis ejus, qua? nuncupatione paricidii continetur, fata
properaverit, sive clam sive palam id fuerit enisus, neque gladio, neque ig-
nibus, neque ulla alia pcena solemni subjugetur, sed insutus culleo, et inter
ejus ferales angustias comprehensus, serpentum contuberniis misoeatur : et ut
regionis qualitas tulei it, vel. in vicinum mare, vel in amnem projiciatur: ut
omni elementorum usu vivus carere incipiat; ut ei caelum superstiti, terra
mortuo auferatur. Vid. Gothofred. , in loc.

CHAP. X.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 345
place will admit: that he may be deprived of the use of all
the elements as long as he remains in being ; that he may
have neither air to breath in whilst he lives, nor earth to
receive him when he is dead." This was the punishment
of such as slew father or mother, or son, or daughter, or any
such relation in the direct line : but if it was any other re
lation, then only the common death of murderers was in
flicted on them, as we learn from Justinian's Institutes1
and his Code, where this matter is determined. Now the
Church having no power of the sword, could make no such
distinction ; but punished both sorts in the same way, with
the spiritual censure of excommunication.

Sect. 6.— Of Self-Murder.
And so she treated all those, who laid violent hands upon
themselves, who were known by the common name of Bia-
thanati, or self-murderers. Because this was a crime, that
could have no penance imposed upon it, she shewed her just
resentment of the fact, by denying the criminals the honour
and solemnity of a Christian burial, and letting them lie
excommunicate and deprived of all memorial in her prayers
after death. " If any one," says the first Council of Braga,2
" bring himself to a violent end, either by sword, or poi
son, or a precipice, or an halter, or any other way, no
commemoration shall be made of him in the oblation, nor
shall his body be carried to the grave with the usual
psalmody. And they, who suffer death for their crimes,
shall be treated after the same manner." The reason of
treating both these sorts of men in this manner, was be-

1 Justin. Institut. lib. iv. Tit. xviii. de Publicis Judiciis. Si quis autem
alias cognatione vel adfinitate personas conjunctas necaverit, poenam legis
Cornelia? de sicariis sustinebit. * Vid. Cod. Justin, lib. ix. tit. 17.
De his qui parentes vel liberos occiderunt. leg. 1.
' Con. Bracar. i. can. xxxiv. Placuit, ut hi qui aut per ferrum, aut per ve-
nenum, aut per pra?cipitium, aut suspendium, aut quolibet modo violentam
sibi ipsis inferunt mortem, nulla pro illis in oblatione commemoratio fiat,
neque cum psalmis ad sepulturam eorum corpora deducantur.  Similiter
et de his placuit fieri, qui pro suis scclcribus puniuntnr.

346 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
cause they were accessary to their own deaths ; either
directly by offering violence to their own lives ; or indirectly,
by committing such capital crimes as brought them in the
course of justice to an untimely end. Both the Greeks and
Latins style them Biothanati, or Biathanati, from offering
violence to themselves, or coming to a violent death. And
Cassian particularly notes the discipline of the Church1
then used toward such after death, speaking of the case of
one Hero, an Egyptian monk, whom Satan, under the dis
guise of a good angel, had tempted to throw himself into a
deep well, upon presumption that no harm could befal him
for the great merit of his labours and virtues : for which fact
he says, Pafuntius the abbot could hardly be prevailed upon
not to reckon him among the Biothanati, or self-murderers,
and deny him the privilege of being mentioned in the obla
tion for those, that were at rest in the Lord. Which is
sufficient to shew us the manner of treating such in the
ancient discipline of the Church.
Sect. 7. — Of Dismembering the Body.
It was also reckoned a species or lower degree of this
crime, for any one to disfigure his own body, by cutting
off any member or part thereof, without just reason to
engage him so to do. The Canons forbad any such to
be ordained, as men who were in effect self-murderers,1 and
enemies of the workmanship of God, as has been shewn at
large in another place.3 What is further to be noted here
is, that this discipline extended to laymen as well as clergy
men. For one of the Apostolical Canons orders,* that a lay
man, who dismembers himself, shall be debarred the com
munion for three years, because he insidiously makes an at-

1 Cassian. Collat. ii. cap. 5. Vix a presbytero Abate Pafuntio potuit ob-
tineri, ut non inter biothanatos reputatus, etiam memoria etoblatione pau-
santiumjudicarelur indignus. s Vid. Canon. Apost. c. xxi.
Con. Nie. can. i. • Book iv. chap. iii. sect. 9.
4 Canon. Apost. xxiii. al. 24. AmVoc iavrbv a.Kpiorr]pi.daag, atyopi'CtvSu "trr\
rnta. IffifiovXac yap iziv rrfg iavrn "£wijg.

CHAP. X.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 34T
tempt upon his own life. But if men were either born with a
natural defect, or the barbarity of the persecutors, or the
necessity of a disease deprived them of any member, in
order to effect the cure of the body, and save the whole ;
in all these cases there was no crime, because the thing
was involuntary ; in which cases the law itself made an
exception, and freed men from incurring the censures of the
Church,1 as maybe seen in the Nicene canons, which par
ticularly mention these as excepted cases. I only observe
one thing further out of the laws of Constantine, that he
had so great a Tegard to the face, as the image of the
Divine Majesty in all human bodies whatsoever, that he
would not suffer any mark of infamy to be set upon it, to
stigmatize the greatest criminals. For whereas by the old
Roman laws notorious criminals migbt be branded in the
forehead, to make their offences more infamous and pub
lic: Constantine by one of his first laws cancelled and re
voked this custom,2 ordering, that whatever criminal was con
demned either to fight with wild beasts, or dig in the
mines, he should not be stigmatized in the face, but only in
the hands or legs, that the face, which was formed
after the image of the Divine Majesty and Beauty,
might not be disfigured. Which certainly was intended
piously by Constantine, as a just caution to restrain men
from offering violence to their own bodies, which were cre
ated after the image and similitude of God in some measure,
though that likeness was more visibly seen in the original
perfections of the soul.
Sect. S.— Of involuntary Murder by Chance, or Manslaughter.
All these cases respect such actions as have some ten
dency toward voluntary murder. Besides which the Church
allotted sometimes a proportionable punishment to acciden-
1 Con. Nicen. can. 1. * Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 40.
De Poenis. leg. ii. Siquisin ludum fuerit, vel in metallum, procriminum de-
prehensorum qualitate, damnatus, minime in ejus facie scribatur : dum et
in manibus et in suris possit poena damnationis unS subscriptione compre-
hendi : Quo facies, quas ad similitudinem pulchritudinis coelestis est fign-
rata, minime maculetur.

348 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
tal and involuntary murder, though the Civil Law took little
or no notice of it. For by the old Roman and Christian
laws, a master was allowed to punish and correct his slave
with great severity:1 and if in that correction the slave
chanced to die, no action of murder could be brought
against the master, unless it appeared that he used some
weapon, or fraud in his punishment, that tended directly to
kill him. But notwithstanding this, the ecclesiastical law,
having a more tender regard even to the life of slaves, took
cognizance of such cruelties, and obliged the actors to a
certain term of penance, though the murder was only casual,
and not directly intended. To this purpose it is decreed in
the Council of Eliberis,2 that if any mistress in the heat of
her anger so scourge her slave, that the slave die within
three days; whereas it might be uncertain whether it was a
voluntary, or a chance murder ; if it was a voluntary murder,
she was to do penance seven years : if casual, only five
years: and all the favour, that was allowed in this case, was,
that if sickness seized her, she might be admitted to com
munion sooner. We find alike decree in the discipline of the
French Church, made by the Council of Epone, Anno 517,s
that if any one put his slave to death without a legal trial
before the judge, he-should expiate his murder by excom
munication for two years. And it is remarked of Caesarius
Arelatensis by the author of his life,* that he was used to
protest to the prefects of the Church, who had then power
to inflict corporal punishment, that if they scourged any
one to an immoderate degree, so as that he died under his
stripes, they should be held guilty of murder. Nay, so

1 Vid. Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 12. De Emendatione servorum. leg. i.
and ii. Constantini. s Con Eliber. can. v. Si qua
Domina furore zeli accensa, ilagris verberaverit ancillam suam, ita ut intra
tertium diem animam cum cruciatu effundat; eo quodincertum sit, voluntate,
an casu occiderit; si voluntate, post septem annos; si casu, post quiuquennii
tempora, acta legitima Pcenitentia ad communionem placuit admitli, &c.
* Con Epaunen. can. xxxiv. Si quis servum proprium sine conscientiS
judicisocciderit, excommunicatione biennii effusionem sanguinis expiabit.
* Cypr. Vit. Caesar. Arelat. Contestabatur ecclesia? praifectos, si quis ju-
beret quempiam diutius flagellari, et ilia verbera illi mortem afferent, ut is
Homicidii reum se sciret.

343

Chap. x.J christian church.
tender was the Church in this point of shedding man's
blood, that she would not ordinarily allow any soldier to be
ordained to any sacred office of presbyter or deacon ; nor
suffer her bishops to sit as judges in capital causes, where
they might be concerned to give sentence in cases of blood :
as I have had occasion to shew more at large in their pro
per places,1 to which I refer the reader. Among the Aposto
lical Canons, there is one that orders,2 that if any clergy
man in a brawl or scuffle smite another, so as to kill him
though it were by the first blow, he shall be deposed'; if a
layman, he shall be cast out of communion, and St. Basil's
Canons impose eleven years penance upon all voluntary
murderers whatsoever.3
Sect. P.— False Witness against any Man's Life reputed Murder.
Neither was it only actual murder which they thus cen
sured, but all actions that had any direct or immediate ten
dency towards it ; as, bearing false witness against a man's
life. For, as Lactantius, well expresses it,* " there is no
difference between killing a man with the sword or with the
tongue : It is murder still in either species, and a violation
of God's law against invading the life of man, which
admits of no exception." And therefore the civil law,5
appointed the punishment of retaliation to be in-,
flicted on every false accuser, that if any one called
another man's credit, or fortune, or life, or blood, into ques
tion in judgment, and could not make out the crime alleged
against him, he should suffer the same penalty, that he in
tended to bring upon the other. And no one could formally
implead another at law, till he had bound himself to this

1 Book iv. chap. iv. sect. 1. And Book ii. chap. vii. sect. 4.
* Canon. Apost. 66. a Basil can. 57.
* Lact. lib. vi. cap. 20. Nihil distat, utrum ferro, an verbo potius occidas,
quoniam occisio ipsa prohibetur, &c. 6 Cod. Theod.
lib. ix. tit. 1. De Accusationibus. leg. xi. Qui alterius famam, fortunas,
caput denique et sanguinem in judicium devocaverit, sciat sibi impendere
congruam poenam, si quod intenderit non probaverit. It. leg. xix. ibid. Nee
impunitam fore noverit licentiam mentiendi, cum calumniantes ad vindictam
poscat similitudo supplicii. ,

350 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
condition, which the law terms "vinculum inscription^
the bond of inscription." Now, though the ecclesiastical law
could not inflict the punishment of retaliation for false-wit
ness against any man's life ; yet all false testimony being a
crime punishable with excommunication; as we shall see
more fully under the punishment of sins against the ninth
commandment ; we may be sure, such false testimony as
tended directly to deprive men of their lives, must be re
puted by the Church among the highest species both of
calumny and murder ; and consequently bring them under
all the penalties, that were due to those crimes in any degree
whatsoever.2Sect. 10.— Informers against the Brethren in Time of Persecution treatjd as
Murderers.
Yea, a bare information, or discovery of the names of the
brethren to the heathen magistrates, for as much as that
in times of difficulty and persecution might endanger
their lives, was justly reputed and censured as t£mur-
der likewise. The first Council of Aries orders,3 that if any
such informers were found among the clergy, and convicted
from the public acts, that they had betrayed either the Holy
Scriptures, or the sacred utensils, or the names of their
brethren to the heathen, they should be degraded from their
orders. And the Council of Eliberis goes a little further,3
and determines, " that if any Christian informed against his
brethren, so as that any one was proscribed or slain upon his

1 Ibid. leg. xiv. Non prius cujuscunque caput accusatione pulset, quam
vinculo legis adstrictus, pari cceperit poena? conditione jurgare. &c.
Et leg. 19. Vinculum inscriptions aecipiat, &c. Vid. Leonis. Novel, lxxvii.
* Vid. Con. Eliber. can. 74.
* Con. Arelat. i. can. xiii. De his qui Scripturas sanctas tradidisse dicun
tur, vel vasa dominica, vel nomina fratrum suorum, placuit nobis, ut qui-
cunque eorum in actis publicis fuerit detectus, non verbis nudis, ab ordine
cleri amoveatur. * Con Eliber. can. 73. Delator 91
quis extiterit fidelis, et per delationem ejus aliquis fuerit proscriptus vel in-
terfectus, placuit eum nee in fine (al. non nisi in fine) accipere communionem.
lt. can lxxiv. Falsus testis, prout crimen est, abstinebit : si tamen non
fuerit mortis quod objecit, &c.

GHAP. X.] christian church. 851
information, he should not be received into communion at
the last, or not till his last hour, as different copies read it."
Sect. 11. — Exposing of Infants reputed Murder.
Another sort of interpretative murder was the exposing
of infants, against which the Ancients commonly declaim
with great vehemency in the practice of the heathen. " You
accuse us," says Tertullian, " of murdering infants; but let
me turn to your people, and appeal to their consciences, and
then how many may I find among those, that stand about us,
and thirst after Christian blood; nay, among those just and
severe judges that condemn us, who kill their children as
soon as they are born, or else expose them to cold,1 and
famine, and dogs ? You expose your children to the mercy
of strangers and the next comers, that will take pity on
them and adopt them more kindly for their own chil
dren." The same charge is brought against them by
Minucius Felix,8 that they exposed their children, as soon
as they were born, to wild beasts and birds of prey. Athe-
nagoras says expressly,3 all such are parricides or murderers
of their children. And Lactantius a little more largely in
veighs against them upon the same foundation. They pre
tended, he says, by a sort of false piety, to expose them
only to keep them from starving, because they were poor
and not able to maintain them, but they cannot be deemed
innocent, who cast their own bowels as a prey to dogs, and
as much as in them lies, kill them more cruelly than if they
strangled them. Who can question the impiety of him, who
leaves no room for others to shew mercy ; but admit that he
attains his end, which he pretends, that his child is thereby
nourished and brought up ; yet doubtless he condemns
his own blood either to slavery or the stews ; of which there
were many examples in both sexes. Therefore he concludes,
that for men to expose their children, was the same base

' Tertul. Apol. cap. ix. Aut Frigori aut faini, aut canibus exponitis,
&c. Vid. Tertul. ad Nationes. lib. i. cap. 16. * Minuc. p. 90.
¦ Athen. Legat. pro Christian, p. 38. * ^act. lib. vi.
«ap. 20.

352 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
and villainous action as to kill them. And whereas men
were apt to complain of their poverty, and pretend they
were not able to bring up many children : he not only an
swers this from considerations of Providence, in whose
power the fortunes and possessions of all men are, to
make rich men poor, and poor men rich; but is also thought
by his prudent advice to have induced Constantine to enact
those two excellent and charitable laws, still extant in the
Theodosian Code,1 whereby it is provided by his great mu
nificence in several parts of the Empire, that poor parents
who had numerous families, which they could not maintain
should have relief out of the public revenues of the
empire ; that they might be under no temptation either to
expose or kill, or sell, or oppignorate and enslave their
children ; of which there had been so great complaints
under the former reigns of heathenism. Constantine3 and
Honorius added two other laws to these, in favour of such
as took care of exposed children, that parents should, have
no right to claim them again, nor accuse those of theft or
plagiary, who shewed mercy on those, whom they exposed
to death, aud by their neglect suffered to perish ; provided
only that the collectors of such children made evidence
before the bishop, that they were really exposed and de
serted. And in this case the ecclesiastical laws concurred
with the secular, adding the penalty of excommunication,
to be inflicted on all parents, who thus proved themselves
guilty of murdering their children. For so the Canons ex
pressly word it. The Council of Vaison first prescribes
the method of ascertaining such children to the right and
possession of those, who became their foster-fathers, ac
cording to the tenour of the imperial laws ; and then pro
nounces those, who exposed them, guilty of murder by
their own confession. " A clamour,"3 says the council, " is

1 Cod. Th.lib. xi. tit. 27. de Alimentis, &c. leg. 1, and 2.
* Cod. Theod. lib. v. tit. vii.de Expositis, leg. land 2.
8 Con. Vasionen.i. can.9. De Expositis (quia conclamaturab omnibus) que-
rela processit, eos non misereeordiae jam, sed canibus exponi, quos colli-
gere calumniatorum metu, quamvis praeceptis miserecordiae inflexa mens hu-
mana detrectet: id servandum visum est, ut secundum statuta fidelissemorum

CHAP. X.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 353
made on all sides, and complaint brought before us concern
ing exposed children, that they are now no longer exposed to
the mercy of Christians, but to be devoured by dogs, because
every one refuses to take them up, for fear of prosecution
from false accusers : we therefore decree, that according to
the laws of pious, emperors and princes, whoever takes up an
exposed child, shall make testimony thereof unto the Church,
and the minister on the Lord's day, shall publish it at the
altar, that if any one owns it within ten days he may' re
ceive it again ; giving a recompence to the finder for his
charitable care for that term, or letting him keep it for ever
as his own possession." But the next canon adds,1 " that
if any one, after this legal form of proceeding has been ob
served in the case, pretend to claim the exposed infant, or
accuse the finder as a plagiary or man-stealer, he himself
shall be punished as a murderer by the censures of the
Church." All which manifestly proves, that in the account
of conscience and the ancient discipline, the parent, who
deserts his infant and leaves it defenceless to the injuries of
fortune, or want, or the weather, or wild beasts, is a
real murderer, as doing that, in consequence of which, mur
der nececessarily ensues, unless some favourable providence
interposes to prevent it.
Sect. 12. — If a Virgin defloured kills herself for Grief, the Corrupter is
reputed guilty of the Murder.
For the same reason some canons appointed all accesso
ries to murder to do the same penance as the murderers
themselves. The Council of Ancyra puts a special case of
this nature. A man, that is espoused to a woman, deflours
her sister, and afterward marries the other : she, that is so
defiled, hangs herself for grief: the man, as accessory to

piissimorumque Augustorum et principum, quisquis expositum colligit, ec
clesiam contestetur, &c.
1 Con. Vasionen. i. can. 10. Si quis expositorum hoc ordine collectorum
repetitor vel calumniator extiterit, uthomicida habendus est, et ecclesias
tica districtione damnabitur. Vid. Con. Arelat. ii. can. 32. where the same;
things are repeated.
VOL. VI. 2 A

354 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE {BOOK XVI.
the murder,1 is ordered to do ten years penance for his
crime, before he is allowed to appear among the co-standers
at the communion.

Sect. 13.— The Lanista-, or Fencing- Masters, reputed Accessories to
Murder, and their Calling condemned.
The case of the Lanistce, or Masters of Fencing, was
much of the same nature. Their art in preparing gladiators
for the theatre, was always reputed a scandalous trade ;
being in effect no better than teaching men to murder and
butcher one another. And therefore the Church would
never allow it as a lawful profession. Tertullian says ex
pressly,8 " that the prohibition of murder shewed there was
no place for fencers in the Church : for they were impleaded
guilty of shedding that blood, which they taught others to
shed." The Author of the Constitutions puts gladiators
in the number of those, who were to be rejected from
baptism.3 And Constantine prohibited the art itself as un
christian,* ordering such criminals, as were used to be con
demned to fight for their lives upon the stage, rather to be
sent to the mines, that they might suffer punishment with
out blood. For though in the beginning of his reign he
allowed it to be used as a punishment for some crimes: as
in the case of plagiary or man-stealing, which they that
were guilty of were condemned to fight for their lives*
with wild beasts, or one another: yet afterwards he
seems to have revoked this also. And Valentinian abso
lutely forbad any Christian or any Palatine soldier to be con
demned to this punishment.6 Nay, some of the wiser hea-

1 Con. Ancyr. can. xxvi. 2 Tertul. de
Idol. cap. xi. Sic et homicidii interdictio ostendit mihi lanistam quoque
ab ecclesia arceri: Nee per se non faciet, quod faciendum aliis submini-
strat. a Constit. lib. viii. cap. 30.
* Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. 12. de Gladiatoribus. leg. 1. Omenta spectacula
in otio civili et domestica quiete non placent, &c.
s Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xviii. ad Legem Fabiani de plagariis. leg. 1.
* Cod. Theod. lib.ix. tit. xl. de Poenis. leg. 8, and 11.

CHAP. X.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 355
thens always abhorred and declared against it. And there
fore there was more reason to prohibit the whole art and
practice of gladiators under the Christian institution, which
Honorius the Emperor, quite abolished and destroyed.1

Sect. 14. — Spectators of the Murders committed on the Stage accounted
Accessories to Murder also.
But the Christian laws and rules of the Church went a
little further. They not only condemned the murders of the
stage but forbad any one to be a spectator of them, under the
penalty of being reputed accessory to the murder. Cyprian,
describing the impiety and barbarity of these inhuman
games, elegantly styles all spectators of them,3 " Oculis
parricidas, men guilty of murder with their eyes:" inti
mating, that no one could entertain himself with the plea
sing sight of them without partaking in the guilt, and de
filing his soul with the contagion of the murders committed
in them. " There is little difference,"3 says Athenagoras,
" between seeing such murders, and committing them ;
and therefore we wholly abstain from the sight of them,
lest any of their wickedness and defilement should cleave
to us." Lactantius, in his elegant and fluent way, declaims
more copiously and vehemently against them. " He that
accounts it a pleasure," says he,* " to see a man killed before
his eyes, though it be a criminal condemned for his villa
nies, pollutes his conscience, as much as if he were both
a spectatorand partaker of any secretmurder. Andyetthey
call these things only games and diversions, wherein hu
man blood is shed. So far are men forsaken of humanity,
that they count it but sport to destroy men's lives or souls

1 Vide Pagi. Crit. in Baron, t. ii. an. 404. n. v. ex Prudentio contra Sym
mach. lib. 2. * Cypr. ad Donat. p. 5.
8 Athen. Legat. pro Christian, p. 38.
4 Lact. lib. vi. cap. 20. Qui hominem, quamvis ob merita damnatum, in
conspectu suo pro voluptate jugulari computat, conscientiam suam polluit,
tam scilicet quam si homicidii, quod fit occulta, spectator et particeps
.fiat, &c.
2 A 2

356 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVr.
being really more wicked and injurious than those very
criminals, whose blood they make their diversion." Upon
this account, in the eye of the Church, to frequent these
inhuman games was the same thing as to commit murder,
and no man could associate with such company, and follow
such diversions, but he was reputed to bid adieu to all hu
manity, piety, and justice, and to make himself partaker
in all the guilt of those publie murders.

Sect. 15. — Famishers of the Poor and Indigent reputed guilty of Murder.
The charge of murder was also brought against those,
who denied the poor their necessary maintenance, and de
frauded their indigent parents of their proper livelihood,
suffering them to perish by famine or want, against the
laws of piety, and natural affection. The fourth Council of
Carthage,1 upon this account, terms those, who defrauded the
Church of the oblations of the dead, " egentium necatores,
murderers of the poor," and, as such, orders them to be
prosecuted to excommunication. And Cyprian, speaking of
the villanies of Novatus, says, among other instances of
his being guilty of parricide and murder, (such as causing
his wife to miscarry by a kick on the belly, when she was
great with child,) he suffered his own father to starve and
perish by famine, and left him unburied after death.9 For
which crimes he had certainly been expelled, not only from
the presbytery, but from all communion with the Church,
had not the difficult times of approaching persecution pre
vented the day of his trial, and given him opportunity to
escape the condemnation, that was due to him by the just
discipline and censures of the Church. All these were
reckoned guilty of murder, indirectly at least, as accessories
and partakers in the sin, though their hands were not ac
tually and directly engaged in shedding of blood.

1 Con. Carth. iv. can. 95. a Cypr. Ep. xlix. al.
Iii. ad Cornel, p. 97.

CHAP. X.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 357

Sect. 16. — And all those, by whose Authority Murder was committed.
But none were reputed more guilty of murder than they,
by whose authority it was committed. Though the inferior
instruments were not acquitted, yet the crime was chiefly
laid to the charge of the principal authors. Therefore, as
David was charged by Nathan with the murder of Uriah,
though he was slain through tbe treachery of Joab by the
sword of the children of Ammon, so Theodosius, when by
his orders and authority seven thousand men were slaugh
tered at Thessalonica, was charged by St. Ambrose as the
principal author of tbe murder, and according to the rules
of discipline denied the communion of the Church, till he
had made a suitable and reasonable satisfaction ; for though,
as Cyprian complains to his friend Donatus,1 under the
Heathen Emperors public murder was esteemed a virtue,
which in private men was punished as a great crime ; yet it
was not so under the Christian institution, but there was a
power to bring even emperors and princes under discipline
for such public offences, as appears from the ease of The
odosius now mentioned. And the case of the munerarii,
that is, such Christian magistrates as exhibited the munera,
¦ or inhuman games, where men murdered one another upon
the stage, is a further evidence of this power and practice.
For the canons of the Church order all such magistrates
to be excommunicated,2 as contributing by their authority,
and expenses both to idolatry and murder. So that murder,
in whatever species it appeared, or by whatever persons
it was committed, was always reputed a crime of the first mag
nitude, exposing men to the utmost severity of ecclesiastical
censure.

1 Cypr. ad Donat. p. 5. Homicidium cum admittunt singuli crimen est ;
virtus vocatur cum publice geritur. * See chap. iv.
Sect. 8.

358 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Sect. 17.— Enmity and Strife and Contention, punished as lower
Degrees of Murder.
And it must be added, that all open enmity and quarrel
ling, strife, envy, anger, and contention, professed malice
and hatred, were punished with excommunication, as ten
dencies toward this great sin, and lower degrees of murder.
St. John, says, " He that hateth his brother, is a murderer,
and no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Our
Saviour also declares, " That he that is angry with his bro
ther without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment;
and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in
danger of the council : but whosoever shall say, Thou
Fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire." Now agreeably to
these instructions, the Church to prevent or correct all ten
dencies toward the great sin of murder, laid proper restraints
and penalties upon the unruly passions of men, whenever
they discovered themselves in any visible acts of malice or
hatred, and strife or contention. The communion was the
great symbol of love and charity, and the covenant of peace
and unity, and the great uniter of men's hearts and affections.
Therefore all, who visibly wanted these necessary qualifica
tions, were thought unworthy of that venerable mystery,
and accordingly obliged by the discipline of the Church,
till they were so qualified, to abstain from it. The fourth
Council of Carthage made an order,1 that the oblations of
such as were at enmity or open variance with their brethren,
should neither be received into the treasury of the Church
nor at the altar : which was as much as to say, they should
not communicate whilst they were in that condition. And
the second Council of Aries removes those from the privi
lege of joining with the assemblies of the Church,2 who

1 Con. Carth. iv. can. 93. Oblationes dissidentium fratrum, neque in
sacrario, neque in Gazophylacio recipiantur. * Con.
Arelat. ii.can. 31. Hi, qui publicis inter se odiis exardescunt, ab ecclesi-
asticis conventibus sunt removendi, donee ad pacem recurrant.

CHAP. X.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 359
break forth into public hatreds and animosities, one against
another, until they are reconciled, and return to peace again.
They, that evil entreat their servants or slaves with stripes,
famine, or hard bondage, are ordered to be refused commu
nion by the rules of the Constitutions.1 And Chrysostom
often warns the clergy,* that they should admit no cruel or
unmerciful man to the communion. For if they gave the
eucharist wittingly to any such flagitious man, his blood
would be required at their hands, " though it be a general,
though it be a consul, though it be him that wears tbe crown,
restrain him, if he comes unworthily: thou hast greater
power than he." But this was to be understood of great
and enormous violations of charity, expressing themselves
in open and professed acts of cruelty ; not of every lower
degree of anger, especially rash and sudden anger, which,
as I shewed before,3 was to be cured by other methods, and
not by the highest remedies of severity in the exercise of
ecclesiastical censure.
These were the rules of discipline, whereby the Church
proceeded in censuring and punishing the great sin of
murder, with all its species and appendages so far as it was
either possible or proper to take notice of them : reserving
the rest for the gentler methods of admonition and verbal
correction, which, in ordinary cases and lighter transgres
sions of this kind, was sufficient for the amendment of
the sinner.

1 Constit. lib. iv. cap. 6. * Chrys. Horn. 83. in
Mat. p. 705. s Chap. iii. sect. 14.

360 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

CHAP. XI.
Of Great Transgressions against the Seventh Command
ment, Fornication, Adultery, Incest, fyc.
Sect. 1.— The Punishment of Fornication.
Another sort of great crimes, which always made men
liable to the severities of ecclesiastical discipline, were the
sins of uncleanness, or transgressions of the seventh com
mandment: such as fornication, adultery, ravishment, incest,
polygamy, and all sorts of unnatural defilement with beasts
or mankind, and all things leading or paving the way to such
impurities, as rioting and intemperafice, writing or reading
lascivious books, acting or frequenting obscene stage-plays,
allowing or maintaining harlots, or whatever of the like kind
may be called making provision for the flesh to fulfil the
lusts thereof.
To begin with simple fornication : the Heathen laws were
so far from laying any effectual restraints upon it, that they
not only allowed it with impunity, but many times encou
raged it in the very sacred rite,s and mysteries of their gods,
as the ancient Apologists often object against their religion;
whereas the Christian religion laid great and severe penal
ties upon all such, as under the name of Christians were found
guilt}' of it. The Apostolical Canons,1 and those of Neocaesa-
rea,2 forbid such ever to be received into holy orders, or com
mand them to be suspended, if unwittingly ordained. The
Council of Eliberis suspends virgins,* who keep not their vir-

1 Canon Apost. Hii. al. 61. s Con. N eocaesar. can.
jx. * Con. Eliber. can. xiv. Virgines, quae virginitatem suam
non custodierint, si eosdem, qui eas viola verunt, duxerint et tenuerint
maritos, eo quod solas nuptias violaverint (nempe non Deo dedicatae, ut

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 361
ginity, a whole year from the communion ; obliging them to
marry those, that defiled them ; otherwise they are to under
go five years solemn repentance, because if they are corrupt
ed by others, they become guilty of adultery, which, as we
shall presently see, had a more severe punishment than
simple fornication.

Sect. 2.— Of Adultery.
For whereas St. Basil's Canons appoint seven years pen
ance for fornication only, they prescribe fifteen for adultery,1
and sometimes double the number.2 The Council of
Ancyra imposes seven years for adultery,3 but makes no
express mention of fornication. The Council of Eliberis
appoints five years penance for a single act of adultery;*
aud ten years if repeated:5 but if any continued in it all
their lives, they were not to have the communion
at their last hour. And in some of the African Chur
ches before the time of St. Cyprian, this was the com
mon punishment for all adultery. For he says,® some of his
predecessors refused the peace of the Church to all adul
terers, and shut the door of repentance entirely against
them ; though it was otherwise in his time, when adulterers
had a certain term of penance appointed them, after which
they might be restored to the peace of the Church.

can. xiii.) post annum sine poenitentia reeonciliari debebunt. Vel si alios
cognoverint viros, eo quod moechata sint, placuit, per quinquennii tempora,
acta legitima pcenitentia, admitti eas ad communionem.
1 Basil, can. 58, et 59. s Ibid, can. vii.
8 Con. Ancyr. can. 20. * Con. Eliber. can. 69. Si
quis forte habens uxorem, semel fuerit lapsus, placuit eum quinquennium
agere de e3 re Poenitentiam. 6 Ibid. can. 64. Si qua mu-
lier usque in finem mortis sua? cum alieno fuerit viro moechata, placuit nee
in fine dandam ei esse communionem. Si vero eum reliquerit, post decern
annos recipi ad communionem, acta legitima poenitentia.
6 Cypr. Ep. Iv. al. Iii. ad Antonian. p. 109. Moechis a nobis poenitentia
conceditur, et pax datur.  Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de
episcopis in provincia nostra dandam pacem moechis non putaverunt, et in
totum poenitentia? locum contra adulteria clauserunt; non tamen a coepisco-
porum suorum collegio recesserunt.

362 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Whence Bishop Pearson1 rightly reproves Albaspinaeus for
asserting, that adulterers were never received into commu
nion before the time of Cyprian. For Cyprian says expressly,
they were received to repentance in most Churches, though
rejected by some. And it appears plainly from Tertullian,
who lived before Cyprian, and wrote his book De Pudicitia,
as a Montanist, against the Catholics, for receiving adul
terers to their Communion. Yet in the case of the clergy,
the law continued still a little more severe. For by a rule
of the Council of Eliberis,2 if a bishop, presbyter, or dea
con was convicted of adultery, he was to be denied com
munion to the very last, as well for the greatness ofthecrime,
as for the scandal he gave to the Church thereby. And by
another Canon of the same Council,3 every clergyman, who
knew his wife to be guilty of committing adultery, and
did not presently put her away, was also to be denied com
munion to tbe very last : that they, who ought to be exam
ples of good conversation, might not by their practice
seem to shew others the way to sin. And the Council of
Neocsesarea has a decree of near affinity to this,* " thafrif a
layman's wife be convicted of adultery, it shall render him
incapable of orders : or, if after his ordination she com
mits adultery, he must dismiss her; under pain of degra
dation from his ministerial office, if he retains her." The
civil law both under the Heathen and Christian Emperors
made this crime capital, as Gothofred shews by various
instances both out of the Code and Pandects.5 And Con
stans, the son of Constantine, in particular, appointed
its punishment to be the same as that of parricide, which
was burning alive, or drowning in a sack, with a serpent, an

1 Pearson. Vindic. Ignat. lib. ii. cap. viii. p. 378.
* Con. Eliber. can. xviii. Episcopi, presbyteri, diacones, si in ministerio
positi, detecti fuerint quod sint moechati, placuit et propter scandalum, -et
propter nefandum crimen, nee in fine eos communionem accipere debere.
8 Ibid, can. 65. Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit moechata, et sciat eam maritus
suus mcechari, et eam non statim projecerit, nee in fine aecipiat communio
nem: neab his qui exemplum bonae conversationis esse debent, videantur
magisteria scelerum procedere.
* Con. Neocaesar. can. viii. <• Gothofr. in Cod. Th. lib. ix-
tit. 36. Quorum appellationes, &c. leg. iv.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 363
ape, a cock and dog tyedup with the criminals. When adul
tery, says he,1 is proved by manifest evidence, no dilatory
appeal shall be allowed : but the judge is obliged to punish
those, who are guilty of the sacrilegious violation of mar
riage, as manifest parricides, either by drowning them in a
culleus, or sack, or burning them alive. And this was one
of those crimes, to which the Emperors at Easter would
grant^no indulgence,2 nor allow any appeal to be made
from the judge to themselves in favour of the criminals, as
appears not only from this law of Constans, but several
others.3 It may not be amiss also to observe out of one of
the laws of Theodosius,* that for a Christian, man or wo
man, to marry a Jew, was reputed the same thing as com
mitting adultery, and made the offending party liable to the
same punishment ; because it was at least a spiritual adul
tery, and a sacrilegious prostitution of the members of
Christ to the insolence aud power of his greatest enemies.
And indeed there is nothing that the Ancients more gene
rally condemn than this of Christians joining in marriage
with Jews, or Heathens, or Heretics, or any persons of a
different religion;5 not because it was strictly and properly
adultery, but because it was against the rule of the Apostle,
which orders women to " marry only in the Lord" and there
fore dangerous to the faith, by running themselves into
temptation of changing their religion, either by perverting

1 Cod. Theod. ib. Manifestis probationibus adulterio probato frustrato-
ria provocatio minime admittatur: cum pari similique ratione sacrilegos nup-
tiarum, tanquam manifestos parricidas, insuere culleo vivos, vel exurere,
judicantem oporteat. * Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 38. De indul-
gentiis criminum. leg. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8. s Cod. Th. lib.
ix. tit. 36. Quorum appellationes non recipiantur. leg. 1, 4, 7.
4 Cod. Th. lib. ix. tit. ix. ad legem Juliam de adulteriis. leg. 5. Ne quis
Christianam mulierem in matrimonium Judffius aecipiat, neque Judaeae Chris-
tianus conjugium sortiatur. Nam si quis aliquid hujusmodi admiserit,
adulterii vicem commissi hujus crimen obtinebit.
5 Ambros. de Abrahamo. lib. i. cap. ix. Cave, Christiane, gentili aut
Judaeo filiam tuam tradere: cave, inquam, gentilem aut Judseam, atque
alienigenam, hoc est, haereticam, et omnem alienam a fide tua uxorem accer-
sas tibi. Vid. Aug. Ep. 234. ad Rusticum. Con. Eliberit. can. xvi. Con.
Laodic can. 10, and 31.

364 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
and corrupting the faith, or wholly deserting and aposta
tizing from it.

Sect. 3. — Of Incest.
Another sort of uncleanness was committed by incestuous
marriages, that is, when persons of near alliance, either by
consanguinity or affinity, made marriages one with another,
within the degrees prohibited by God in Scripture. As if a
man married his father's wife, or his wife's daughter, or his
brother's wife, or his wife's sister ; which are cases in affini
ty, particularly mentioned in the Council of Auxerre as pro
hibited cases.1 St. Basil says,2 incest with a sister was to he
punished with the same penance as murder ; and all inces
tuous conjunction, as adultery.3 He, that committed incest
with an half-sister,* was to do eleven years penance ; and he,
who committed incest with his son's wife,5 was to do the
same. He, who successively married two sisters,6 was tb do
the penance of an adulterer, which was fifteen years. And
about all cases of this nature, the Ancients were perfectly
agreed. Herein especially the Christian morals exceeded the
heathen. Among the Persians, it was allowed bv law for
the father to marry his own daughter, or a son his own
mother or sister, as is observed by Origen ;7 Minucius says8
the same of the Egyptians and Athenians ; and Theodosius,
speaking particularly of the Persians in his own time,9 says,
it was then a mark of honour and religion for their princes
to marry their own mothers, or sisters, or daughters. And
Gothofred gives many instances among the Romans of men
marrying their sister's daughters,10 and their brother's daugh
ters, the latter of which was never forbidden by any of their

1 Con. Antissidor, can. xxvii, xxviii, xxix, xxx. a -Basil, can.
lxvii. 8 Id. can. lxviii. * Ibid. can. Ixxv. 6 Ibid.
can. lxxvi. 6 Ibid. can. lxxviii. » Orig. cont. Cels. lib. v.
p. 248. Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. xv. cap. 16. s Minuc
Octav. p. 92. Jus est apud Persas misceri cum matribus : 45gyptiis et
Athenis cum sororibus legitima connubia. 9 Theod. Com. in Levit.
xviii- 8. 10 Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. iii. Tit. xii. deln-
cestis Nuptiis. Leg. i. ex Tacito. Lib. xii. Annal. Sueton. Vit. Claudii
cap. xxvi. Vit. Domitiani, cap. xxii.

CHAP. XI. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 365
laws, though the former had sometimes a restraint laid upon
it. But Constantius made it a capital crime for any one to
marry his brother's or sister's daughter, which was abomina
ble.1 He equally condemned the marrying of two sisters,2
or a brother's wife (though the Jewish law allowed the lat
ter in a certain case) under the penalty of having their chil
dren illegitimate, and accounted spurious. And Theodosius
Junior thought it proper to repeat the same law,3 though
Honorius himself had made a stretch upon it, by marrying
two sisters, the daughters of Stilicho, successively the one
after the other. The ecclesiastical law dissolved all such
marriages as incestuous, and obliged the parties to do pe
nance for their lewdness. The Council of Eliberis requires
five years penance,* unless some intervening danger of death
require the time to be shortened. The Council of Neocse-
saria orders the woman,5 that is married to two brothers, to
remain excommunicate to the day of her death, and then
only to be reconciled by receiving the sacrament in extremity,
upon condition, that if she recovers, she shall dissolve the
marriage, and submit to a course of solemn repentance.
St. Basil argues at large for the nullity and dissolution of
all such marriages,6 in an Epistle to Diodorus Tarsensis,
under whose name there went a feigned treatise in defence
of them. And among the Apostolical Canons there is one
that orders ;T " That whoever marries two sisters, or his bro
ther's daughter, shall never be admitted among the clergy."

1 Cod. Theod. Ibid. Si quis filiam fratris, sororisve, faciendum crediderit
abominantur uxorem, aut in ejus amplexum, non ut patruus aut avunculus,
convolaverit, capitalis sententia? poena teneatur. 2 Cod. Theod. lib.
iii. tit. 12. de Incestis Nuptiis. leg. ii. Etsi licitum veteris crediderunt
nuptiis fratris solutis, ducere fratrum uxorem ; licitum etiam post mortem
mulieris vel divortium, coutrahere cum ejusdein sorore conjugium : abstineant
hujusmodi nuptiis universi, nee aEStiraent posse legitimos liberos ex hoc con
sortio procreari : nam spurios esse convenit, qui nascentur. s Ibid.
leg.iv. * Con. Eliber. can. lxi. Si quis post obitum uxoris sua?, so-
rorem ejus duxerit, quinquennium a communione placuit abstineri, nisi forte
dari pacem velocius necessitatas coegerit infirmitatis. Con.
Neocaesar. can. ii. « Basil. Ep. 197. ad. Diodor. Tarsens.
* Can. Apost. xix;

366 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
SECT. 4.— Whether the Marriage of Cousin-Germans was reckoned
Incest.
But they are not so clear and unanimous in the question
about the marriage of cousin-germans. Till the time of St.
Ambrose and Theodosius there was no law against it, but
Theodosius by an express law absolutely forbad it. This
law is not extant now in either of the codes, but there is re
ference made to it by many ancient writers. Honorius in
one of his laws makes mention of it,1 confirming the pro
hibition, though under a different penalty. For whereas
Theodosius made the penalty to be confiscation and burning,
he moderated the punishment into confiscation of the par
ties' goods, illegitimation of their children. And Arcadius
by another law took off confiscation also,2 but made all such
still guilty of incestuous marriage, and rendered them in
testate, and their children illegitimate, and incapable of
succeeding to any inheritance, as being only a spurious
off-spring. Gothofred has observed likewise,3 that there is
mention made of this law of Theodosius in the writings of
Libanius,* who speaks of it as a new law made by him, tb
forbid the marriage dvtipioi, that is cousin-germans. The like
is said by St. Ambrose,5 who takes notice of the severe pun
ishment which the Emperor laid upon all those, that married
in contradiction to the law. And it is thought that St. Am
brose was the Emperor's adviser in the case, being of opinion
himself that such marriages were incestuous and prohibited
1 Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. 10. Si nuptiae ex rescripto petantur. leg. i.
Exceptis his, quos cousobrinorum, hoc est quarti gradfis conjunctionem, lex
triumphalis memoriae patris nostri exemplo indultorum supplicare non vetavit,
&c. 2 Cod. Th. lib. iii. tit. 12. de Incestis Nuptiis. leg. 3. Ma-
nente circa eos sententia, qui post factam dudum legem quoquo modo abso-
luli sunt aut puniti, si quis incestis posthac consobrinae suae, vel sororis aut
fratris filiae, uxorisve  sese nuptiis funestarit designate quidem lege
supplicio, hoc est, ignium et proscriptionis, careat, proprias etiam quamdiu
vixerit teneat facultatis : sed neque uxorem neque filios ex e& editos habere
credatur, ut nihil prorsus praedictis, ne per interpositam quidem personam,
vel donet superstes, vel mortuus derelinquat. s Gothofred. in Cod.
Th. lib. iii. tit. 10. leg. 1. 4 Liban. Orat. pro.Agricolis. de Angariis.
6 Ambrose Ep. lxvi. ed Paternum. Theodosius Imperator etiara
patrueles fratres et consobrinos vetuit inter se conjugiiconvenire nomine,
et severissimam paenara statuit si quis'teinerare ausus esset fratrum pia pig-
nora, &c.

CHAP.'XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 3&7
in Scripture. St. Austin was of a different judgment from
St, Ambrose, yet he mentions the Emperor's law, and ad
vises men to refrain from such marriages ;J because though
neither the divine law, nor any human law before that of The
odosius, had prohibited them, yet most men were scrupulous
about them, and such marriages were very rarely made,
because men thought they bordered very near upon unlaw
ful ; whilst the marrying a cousin-german was almost
deemed the same thing as marrying a sister, and the pro
pinquity of blood gave men a sort of natural aversion to
such engagements with their near kindred. It appears from
this, that there was no human law before that of Theodosius
to prohibit this sort of marriages ; and in St. Austip's opi
nion there was nothing to hinder them in the law of God.
Athanasius was of the same judgment ;8 for he says expressly,
that by the rule of God's commands the conjunction of cou
sin-germans, or brother's and sister's children in matrimony,
was lawful marriage. And afterwards ATcadius revoked all
former laws that he himself or others had made in deroga
tion of such marriages declaring them legal,3 and that no
action or false accusation should lie against them, but that
if cousin-germans married together, whether they were the
children of. two brothers, or two sisters, or a sister and a
brother, their matrimony should be lawful, and their children
legitimate. Justinian made this the standing law of the
empire, not only by inserting it into his Code, but by decla
ring the same thing in his Institutions.* Where Contius*
1 Aug. de Civ.Dei. lib; xv. cap. 16. Experti sumus in connubiis eonso-
brinorum etiain nostris temporibus, propter gradum propinquitatis fraterno
gradui proximum, quam raro per mores fiebat, quod fieri per leges licebat,
quia id nee divina prohibuit, et nondum prohibuerat lex humana : verunta-
men factum etiam licitum propter vicinitatem horrebatur illicit!, et quod fie
bat cum consobrinS, pene cum sorore fieri videbatur, &c. 2 Athan.
Synops. Scriptur. Lib. Numeror. torn. ii. p. 70. "Stpiiiovelvai yapov rf/v irpbg
avetyiug avZvyiav, , 8 Cod. Justin, lib. v. tit. 4. de Nuptiis. leg. xix.
Celebrandis inter consobrinos matrimoniis licentia legis hujus salubritate
indultaest; ut revocati prisci juris, auctoritate, restinctisque calumniarum
fomentis, inatrimonium inter consobrinos habeatur legitimum, sive ex duo-
bus fratribus, sive ex duabus sororibus, sive ex fratre et sorore nati sunt,
&c. * Justin. Instit. lib. i. tit. 10. Duorum fratrum vel sororum
liberi, vel fratris et sororis conjungi possunt. * Contius in locum.

368 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
rightly observes, that though some copies and some ancient
writers, as Theophilus and others, read it negatively,
" Conjungi non possunt:" yet the other is certainly the
true reading, both because it is agTeeable to the law of
Arcadius in the Code, and because Gregory the Great so
alleges it in his answer to Austin the Monk upon this
question, saying,1 " the civil law of the Roman Empire
allows the marriage of cousin-germans, but the sacred law
forbids it." And this was now the known difference be
tween the civil and ecclesiastical law. For though Zepper3
alleges the Council of Epone and the second of Tours, as
allowing such marriages, yet he plainly mistakes in both.
For the Council of Epone expressly styles them incest and
adultery,3 ranking them with marriages contracted with a
sister, or the relict of a brother, or a father's wife. And the
Council of Tours is as plain in the matter,* quoting the
foresaid canon of Epone, and another of the Council of
Arvern or Clermont against them. Gregory II. made a like
decree in a Council at Rome,5 Anno 721, and in the follow
ing ages the prohibition extended to the sixth or seventh6
generation. The short of the whole matter is this : before the
time of Theodosius there was no law, ecclesiastical or civil, to
prohibit the marriage of cousin-germans : under the reign of
Theodosius they were forbidden, but allowed again in the next
reign, and under Justinian, who fixed the allowance in the
body of his laws. But still the canons continued the prohi
bition, and extended it to a greater degree. But as this
was not the original constitution, nor the practice of the

1 Greg. lib. xii. Ep. 31. et ap. Bedam. lib. i. cap. xxvii. Qusdamter-
rena lex in Romana republica permittit, ut sive frater et soror (leg. fratris
et sororis) seujduorum fratrum germanorum, vel duarum sororum filius et filia
miseeantur. Sed sacra lex prohibet, &c. 2 Zepper. Legum Mosaica-
rum Forensium Explanat. lib. iv. cap. 19, p. 506. * Con. Epaunen.
can. xxx. Incestis junctionibus nihil prorsus veniae reservamus, nisi cura
adulterium separatione sanaverint ;  si quis novercain duxerit, si quis
consobrinae se societ. * Con. Turon. ii. can. 22. Quisquis aut sororera,
aut filiam, aut certe gradu consobrinam, aut fratris uxorem, sceleratis sibi
nuptiis juxerit, huic pcenae subjaceat, &c. s Con. Roman, can. 8. Si
quis consobrinam duxerit iu conjugium, anathema sit. * Vid. Gralian
Caus. 35. Quaest. 5.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 369
Church for some ages, to bring such marriages under peni
tential discipline, as incestuous or simply unlawful; so I
have not here laid this load upon them, but given the fair
account of men's sentiments on both sides, and the diff'erent
practices both of Church and state in several ages ; acting
the part of an historian, but not inducing the reader to con
demn what was once allowed by the general vote of the Ca
tholic Church, however differently represented in later ages.
Sect. 5. — Of Polygamy, and Concubinage.
The nextquestion may be about polygamy, which denotes
either having many wives at once, or many successively one
after another. As to the former,1 Socrates tells a very
strange story of the Emperor Valentinian, that by the ad
vice of his wife Severa he married a second wife, whilst she
was living; and upon that made a law to grant liberty to all
that would, to have two wives at the same time. The au
thor of the book, called, Polygamia Triumphatrix, makes
a great stir with this pretended law in favour of polygamy;
which in all probability is a mere fabulous story, which
Socrates too hastily took up from the relation of some crafty
impostor. F(or there is no footstep of any such law in either
of the Codes, but much to the contrary. For even the
Heathen law forbad it to the old Romans,2 as is evident
from an edict of Diocletian in the Justinian Code, where he
says, " no Roman was allowed to have two wives at
once, but was liable to be punished before a competent
judge." And the Christian law forbad the Jews also to
have two wives at once,3 according to the allowance of
their own law. Salust* says the Romans were used to de
ride polygamy in the barbarians. And though Julius Caesar5
attempted to have a law pass in favour of it, he could not

1 Socrat. lib. iv. cap 31. 2 Cod. Justin, lib. v. tit. 5. de Ince3tis
Nuptiis. leg. ii. Neminem, qui sub ditione sit Romani nominis.binas uxol-es
habere posse vulgo patet, &c. s Ibid. lib. i. tit. 9. de Judaeis. leg.
7. Nemo Judaeorum morem suum in conjunctionibusVetineat, nee juxta legem
suam nuptias sortiatur, nee in diversa sub uno tempore conjugia conveniat.
* Salust. de Bello Jngurth. 6 Sueton. Vit. Julii Caes. cap. Hi
VOL. VI. 2 B

370 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
effect it. And Plutarch remarks1, that Mark Antony was
the first, that had two wives among the Romans. But that,
which is most decisive, is, that neither Zosimus, nor Amrai-
anus Marcellinus, the heathen historians, object any such
thing to Valentinian ; which they would not have failed to
have done, had he taken or granted any such liberty con
trary to the laws of the Romans before him ; but on the other
hand Ammianus Marcellinus says expressly of him,2 " that he
was remarkable for his chastity both at home and abroad,
and had no contagion of obscenity upon his conscience ;
by which means he was able to bridle the petulancy of the
imperial court, and keep itin good order." And Zosimus rather
intimates ,sthat he did not marry his second wife, Justina, till
Severa his first was dead. Whence Baronius* and Valesius1
rightly conclude, that this story in Socrates must needs be
a mere groundless fiction, and that there never was any law
to authorise polygamy in the Roman Empire. . As to the
laws of the Church, St. Basil observes,6 that the Fathers
said little or nothing of polygamy, as being a brutish vice,
to which mankind had no very great propensity. But he
determines it to be a greater sin than fornication, and con
sequently it ought to have a longer course of penance as
signed it: for fornication was to have seven years punish
ment by St. Basil's rules, and yet the term of penance for
polygamy in this canon is only four years : which makes
learned men suspect, that this part of the canon is corrup
ted by the negligence of transcribers, and that St. Basil
originally assigned a longer term of penance for this sin,
than appears from any copies now extant, which only re-

* Plutarch. Vit. Anton. 2 Ammian. Hist. lib. xxx. p. 462. Om
ni pudicitiae cultu domi castus et foris, nullo conscientiae contagio violatus
obscenae ; hancque ob causam tanquam retinaculis petulantiam aulae regalis
frenfirat, quod custodire facile potuit. 3 Zosim. Hist. lib. iv.
4 Baron, an. 370. tom.iv. p. 2721. Vedel. de Prudent Vet. Eccl.. p. 229. is
against Baronius, but Melc. Ziedler de Polygamia. p. 117. defends Baroni-
us's arguments. Vid. Fabric. Bibl. Antiq. p. 58S. where he discourses of
Luther's allowing Philip, Prince of Hesse, to have a second wife, ahd Hono-
Hus. Hi. dispenses with Polygamy in the Earl of Gleichen out of Seek.
aftd Bale and Tentzel. * Vales, in Socfat. lib. iv. o. 31.
« Basil, can, 80.

CHAP. XI.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 371
quires one years penance in the quality ofmourners, and three
years in the class of co-standers, without any mention of their
being hearers or prostrators, which are usually specified in
most other canons of this author. In the first Council of Tole
do,1 there is also a rule, which accounts it the same thing as
polygamy for a man to have a wife and a concubine together :
for such an one may not communicate. But if he have no wife,
but only a concubine instead of a wife, he may not be repelled
from the communion, provided he be content to be joined to
one woman only, whether wife or concubine, as he pleases.
The difficulty, which seems to be in the latter part of this
canon, I have been at some pains to explain in a former
Book,2 where I shew, that in the sense of the ecclesiastical
law, a concubine differs nothing from a wife ; though the
civil law made a greater distinction between them ; calling
her only a concubine, who was married against any of the
rules, which the laws of the state prescribed, and denying
her the privileges, rights, and honours, which belonged to
a legal wife: for she could claim no right from her hus
band's estate, nor her children succeed to his inheritance :
yet she was not reputed guilty of fornication, nor the hus
band accounted an adulterer in the eye of the Church, be
cause they kept themselves faithfully and entirely to each
other by an exact performance of the mutual contract made
between them. Which was the reason why the Church al
lowed such a man to communicate, who was united to a
concubine, in the foresaid sense, instead of a wife ; but
reckoned him guilty of polygamy, who kept a concubine and
a wife together. Sept. 6. — Of Marrying after unlawful Divorce.
Another sort of polygamy was, the marrying of a second
wife after the unlawful divorcement of a former. For this
in effect was reputed the same as having two wives at once.

1 Con. Tolet. i. can. 17. Si quis habens uxorem fidelis, concubinam
habeat, non communicet. Casterum is, qui non habet uxorem, et pro uxore
concubinam habeat, al communione non repellatur, tantum ut unius mulieris,
aut uxoris concubinae, ut eiplacnerit, sit conjunctione contentus.
* Book, xi, chap. v. sect. 1),
F 8 b 2

372 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.]
There were some cases, in which a man might lawfully put
away his w.fe, without any transgression against the rules
of Church or State, or violation of any lavv human or divine.
The civil lavv allowed it in many cases. Constantine spe
cifies three eases,1 in which a man was at liberty to put away
his wife, or a woman her husband. A woman might not
divorce herself from her husband at pleasure for any ordi
nary cause, as, because he was a drunkard, or a gamester,
or given to women ; but only for these three crimes, if he
was a murderer, or a poisoner, or a robber of graves ; if other
wise, she was to forfeit all her title to his substance, and be
sent into banishment. In like manner, the husband was not
to put away his wife, but only for the three crimes of adul
tery, poisoning, and the prac ice of bawdry. If otherwise,
the woman might claim her own portion, and the man was
incapacitated to marry again. The following Emperors al
lowed many other causes of lawful divorce,2 as, if an hus
band was an adulterer, or a murderer, or a poisoner, or guil
ty of treason against his prince, or a perjured person, or a
plunderer of graves, or robber of churches, or an high-way
man, or harbourer of such, a stealer of cattle, or a man-
stealer, or one frequenting the company of lewd women,
which extremely exasperates a chaste wife ; if he attemp-

1 Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. 16. de Repudiis. leg. 1. Placet, mulieri uon
licere propter suas pravas cupiditates marito repudium mittere exquisita
causa velut ebrioso, aut aleatori, aut mulierculario: nee vero maritis per
quascunque occasiones uxores suas dimittere. Sed in repudio mittendo a
foemina haec sola crimina inquiri, si homicidam, vel medicamentarium, vel
sepulchrorumdissolutorum maritum suum esse probaverit, &c. In masculis
etiam, si repudium mittant, haec tria crimina inquiri conveniet, si moecham,
vel medicamentarium, tel couciliatricem repudiare voluerit, &c.
* Cod, Justin, lib. v. tit. 17. leg. 8. Theod. Junior. Si qua maritum suum
adulterum, aut homicidain, aut veneflcum, vel certe contra nostrum imperium
aliquid molientem, vel falsitatis crimine condeninatum inveneril, si sepul-
chroruin dissclutorum, si sacris aedibus aliquid subtrahentem, si latronem, vel
latronum susceptorem, vel actorem, aut plagiarium, vel ad contemptum sui
domfisve suffi, ipsa inspiciente, cuin impud.cis mulieribus (quod maxime
etiam castas exasperat) effitum ineuntem ; si suse vitae veneno, ant gladio,
aut alio simili modo insidiantem ; si se verberibus (quae ingenuis aliena sunt)
afiicientem probaverit : tunc repudii auxilio uti necessario ei permittimus
libertatem, et causas dissidii legibus comprobare, &c, See also Justin. Novel.
xxii. cap. 3. Novel, cxvii. cap. 8. et Cod. de Repudiis leg. 10. etll.

CHAP. XI.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 373
ted her life by poison, or the sword, or any the like means ;
if he beat her as a slave, contrary to the rules of using free-
born women : in any of these cases she had liberty to use
the necessary help of a divorce, making proof of the cause
before a competent judge. And the same liberty was al
lowed the man against his wife upon these and the like rea
sons. But the ecclesiastical laws were much stricter, and
admitted of divorces only in case of adultery, and malicious
desertion. In the case of adultery, women as well as men
were allowed to divorce themselves from the offending par
ty, as appears from the case related by Justin Martyr,1 and
out of him by Eusebius,2 and several places of St. Austin?
And some canons oblige the clergy to dismiss their adulte
rous wives,* under pain of ecclesiastical censure, whilst St.
Austin pleads with the laity,5 rather to be reconciled to an
adulterous wife upon her repentance, than dis/niss her en
tirely, because of many great inconveniencies that might
attend it. One of which was, that he thought the Scrip
ture forbad both man and woman to marry again, even after
a lawful divorce, till one of the parties was dead. But he
does not so dogmatically assert this, as to make marrying
after such a lawful divorce, to be a crime worthy of excom
munication. For in another Book, where he treats of the
qualifications of baptism, he says,6 " A man who puts
away his wife for adultery, and marries another, is not to
be ranked with those, who put away their wives without
cause, aud marry again. For the question is so obscurely
resolved in Scripture, whether he, who putting away his
1 Justin. Apol. i. p. 42. 2 Euseb. lib. iv. cap. 17.
' Aug. de Adulterinis Conjugiis. lib. vii. cap. 6. &c. It. de Bono Conju-
gali. cap. vii. 4 Con.Neocaesar. can, 8 5 Aug. de Adult. Con-
jug, lib. ii- per totum. 6 Aug.deFid. et Oper. cap. xix. Quisquis uxorem
in adulterio deprehensam diroiserit, et aliam duxerit, non videtur aequandus
eis, qui excepta causa adulterii dimittunt et ducunt. Etin ipsis divinis sen-
tentiis ita obscurum est, utrum et iste cui quidem sine dubio adulterant licet
dimittere. adulter tamen habeatur si alteram duxerit, ut quantum existimo
venialiter ibi quisque fallatur. Quamobrem qua? manifesta suntimpudicitiai
crimina, omnimodo a baptismo prohibenda sunt, nisi mutatione voluntatis et
paenitentia corrigantur: quae autem dubia. omnimodo coiiandum est ne fiant
tales conjunctiones. Quid enim opus est in tantum discrimen ambiguitatis
caput immittere ? Si autem factae fuerint, nescio utrum ii qui feeerint, simi
liter ad baptismum non debere videatur adinitti.

374 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
wife for adultery marries again, be upon that score an
adulterer, that a man may be supposed to err venially in the
matter. Therefore those crimes of uncleanness, which are
manifestly so, ought to debar a man from baptism, unless
he change his mind, and correct his crimes by repentance:
but for those, which are dubious, all that is to be done, is to
endeavour to persuade men not to engage in such marriages.
For what need is there for men to run their heads into such
dangerous ambiguities 1 But if they are already done, I
am not sure, that they, who do them, ought therefore to be
denied baptism." By this it appears, that though St. Aus
tin in his own opinion was persuaded, that marrying after a
lawful divorce was forbidden in Scripture ; yet it was not
so clearly forbidden, as to render a man incapable of bap
tism ; nor consequently of the communion : these being of
the same account in Christianity, and a man, that is incapa
ble of the one, is incapable of the other. The first Coun
cil of Aries seems to have acted upon the same sentiments.
The Fathers there declare it unlawful for men,1 who put
away their wives for adultery, to marry others : but they do
not order, that the great censuTe of excommunication shall
be inflicted on them, but only, that they shall be dealt with
and advised not to marry a second wife, while the other, who
was divorced for adultery, was living. The author, under
the name of St. Ambrose,2 makes a difference between the
man and the woman : he says " The man was allowed to
marry a second wife, after he put away a first for fornica
tion, but the Apostle did not allowthe same privilege to the
woman." In which opinion he seems to be singular. For
Epiphanius, speaking of the same matter,3 says, " That as
the Scripture allows men to marry a second wife after the
death of the first: so if a separation is made upon the ac
count of fornication, or adultery, or any such causeat does not

1 Con. Arelat. i. can. 10. De his qui conjuges suas in adulterio depre-
hendunt, et iidem sunt adolescentes fideles, et prohibentur nubere ; placuit,
utin quantum potest, consilium eis detur, ne viventibus uxoribus suis, licet
adulteris, alias accipiant. * Ambros. in 1. Cor. vii. 11. torn. v. p. 262.
Non permititur mulieri ut nubat, sivirum suum causa fornicationis dimiserit.
 Viro licet ducere uxorem, si uxorem dimiserit peccantera.
3 Epiphan. Ha?r. 59. Catharor. n. 4.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 375
condemn either theman, that marries a second Wife, or the wo
man, that marries a second husband, nor deny them the privi
lege of Church-communion or eternal life, but bears with
them for their infirmity." And Origen,1 though he himself was
against the thing, plainly declares, that there were some
bishops in his time, who allowed women as well as men to
marry after such divorces, whilst the separate party was
still living: which he reckons indeed to be against those rules
of the Apostle, " A woman is bound as long as her husband
Iiveth :" and, " She shall be called an adulteress, if as long
as her husband Iiveth, she be married to another man :" Yet
he thinks they might have reasons for permitting it: because
perhaps they had regard to the infirmity of such as could
not contain, and only permitted an evil against the original
rule to avoid a greater sin. Yet some Councils forbad such
marriages under the penalty of excommunication to those,
that were of the number of the faithful f only making some
allowance to those, that were mere catechumens.3 To this
purpose there are two canons in the Council of Eliberis,
and one in the Council of Milevis,* which orders, that accor
ding to the evangelical and apostolical discipline, neither
the man, that is divorced from his wife, nor the woman divor*
ced from her husband, shall marry others, but either abide
so, or be reconciled : and they, that contemn this order, are
to be subjected to public penance ; and withal a petition

1 Orig. Tract. 7. in Mat. torn. ii. p.67. Sei o enim quosdam qui prajsunt
Ecclesiis, extra Scripturam permisisse aliquam nubere, viro priori vivente :
Et contra Scripturam quidem fecerunt, dicentem, " Mulier ligata est quanto
tempore vivit vir ejus." Item, " Vivente viro, adultera vocabitur, si facta
fuerit alteri viro." Non tamen omnino sine causS hoc permiserunt : forsitan
enim propter hujusmodiinfirmitatem incontinentium hominum, pejorum com
paratione, quae mala sunt permiserunt, adversus ea quae ab initio fuerant
scripta. 2 Con. Eliber. can. ix. Fidelis foemina, qua? adulterum mari
tum reliqueritfidelein et alterum duxerit, prohibeatur ne ducat. Si autem
duxerit, non prius aecipiat communionem, quam is quem reliquit, de seculo
lexierit, nisi necessitas infirmitatis dare compulerit. 3 Ibid. can. 10-.
Si ea, quam catechumenus reliquerit, duxerit maritum, potest ad fontem lava»
«jcri admitti. Hoc et circa fsminas catechumenas erit observandum.
'** Cone. Milevit. can. xvii. Placuit ut secundum evangelicam et apostolicam
odisciplinam, neque dimissus ab uxore, neque dimissa a marito, alteri conjun-
gantur : sed ita maneant, aut sibi reconcilientur. Quod si contempserint, ad
poenitentiam redigantur. In qua causa legem imperialem petrndam promul-
gari. Vid. Cod. Afric. can. cv.

376 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
should be presented to the Emperor to desire him to con
firm this rule by an imperial sanction. From all which we
may easily perceive, that this was always reckoned a diffi
cult question, whether persons after a lawful divorce might
marry again in the life-time of the relinquished party ] The
imperial laws allowed it ; many of the ancient Fathers also
approved it; some condemned it, but suffered it to pass
without any public punishment ; and others required a cer
tain penance to be done for it in the Church. Of all which
different practices the learned reader, that is more curious,
may find an ample account in Cotelerius's notes upon
Hermes Pastor.1 But though they differed upon this point,
there was no disagreement upon the other, that to marry a
second wife after an unlawful divorce, whilst the former
was living, was professed adultery, and as such to be pu
nished by the sharpest censures of the Church. The Apos
tolical Canons order every one to be excommunicated,8 who
.eitherputs away his wife and marries ag-ain, or marries one,
that is put away by another. And all canons generally
agree to debar such from entering into holy orders,
as marry a wife, that is put away by another man. The
Council of Eliberis goes further,3 and orders such women,
as forsake their husbands without cause, and marry others,
" to be refused communion even at their last hour." And
such as marry men, * who have put a way their wives unjustly,
if they do it knowingly, "are not to be received till the last '
moment of their days," or as other copies read it, " no, not
at their last hour."

Sect. 7. — Of Second, Third, and Fourlh .Marriages.
Some canons also press hard upon second, third, am
fourth marriages, by which they seem not to understan

1 Coteler. Patres. Apostol. torn. i. p. 88. 2 Cano
Apost. xlviii. Vid. Basil, can. xlviii.
3 Con. Eliber. can. viii. Faeminae quae nulla pracedente causa reliqueru
viros suos, et alteris se copulaverunt, nee in fine accipiant communione
* Ibid. can. x. Si fuerit fidelis, quae duciturab eo ,qui uxorc
jnculpatam reliquerit, et cum scierit ilium habere uxorem, quam sine can
i-eliquit, placuit hujusmodi in fine dari communionem al. nee in fine di
communionem.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 377
either simultaneous polygamy, or marrying after divorce,
whilst the former wife was living'; but marrying two or three
wives successively after the death of the former. For
though they did not account-these downright adultery, nor
with the Montanists and Novatians condemn them as simply-
unlawful; yet some of the Ancients were willing to discou
rage them, and therefore they imposed a certain term of
penance upon them. The Council of Neocsesarea in one
canon says,1 " They, that marry often, have a time of pe
nance allotted them:" and in another,2 " No presbyter shall
be present at the marriage-feast of those, that marry twice:
for a digamist requires pc-nnnce. How then shall a presby
ter by his presence at such feasts give consent to such mar
riages V There are many other harsh expressions in Athe-
nagoras, Irenseus, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysos
tom, Jerom and others concerning second and third marria
ges, which the learned reader may find collected by Cote-
lerius,3 in his Notes upon H ermes Pastor and the Constitutions.
The latter of which writers declares also against second and
third marriages, as transgressions of the law, and brands
fourth marriages with the hard name of " Trpo<j>avrjg wopviia,
manifest fornication ." But Hermes Pastor is more candid :
for in answer to the questiou, whether men or women may
marry after the death of a first consort 1 He says,* '¦' He
fbat marries sins not: but if he continues as he is, he shall
obtain great honour of the Lord." He neither condemns
second marriage, nor gives it any hard name, nor lays any
penalty upon it; but only makes it matter of counsel and
advice to refrain under the prospect of a great reward.
And St. Austin answers the question after the same man
ner,5 that he dares not condemn any marriages for the num
ber of them, whether they be second, or third, or any other.
1 Con. Neocaesar. can. iii. * Ibid. can. vii. ' Coteler.
Not. in Herm. Past. Mandat. iv. lib. ii. etin Constit. lib. 'iii. cap. 2.
1 Her:r. Pastor, lib. ii. Mandat. iv. u. 4. Si vir vel mulier alicujus de-
cesserit, et nupserit aliquis eorum, numquid peccat ? Qui nubit, non peccat :
Sed si per semanserit, magnum sibi conquirit honoremapud Dominum.
5 Aug. deBono Viduitatis. cap. xii. Nee ullas nuptias audeo damnare, nee
eis vericundiam numerositatis auferre, &c.

378 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
" I dare not be wise above what is written. Who am I,
that I should define what the Apostle, has not defined 1 ' The
woman is bound,' says the Apostle, ' As long as her husband
Iiveth.' He said not, the first husband, or the second, or
the third, or the fourth ; but ' The woman is bound as
long as her husband Iiveth : but if her husband be dead,
she is at liberty to be married to whom she will ; only in the
Lord. But she is happier, if she so abide.' I see not what
can be added to, or taken from this sentence. Our Lord
himself did not condemn the woman, that had had seven hus
bands. And therefore I dare not, out of my own heart,
without the authority of Scripture, condemn any number of
marriages whatsoever. But what I say to the widow; that
has been the wife of one man, the same I say to every wi
dow, thou art happier, if thou so abidest." Epiphanius
had occasion to dispute the matter both against the Monta
nists and Novatians, where he says,1 " The Montanists were
of the number of those, who forbid men to marry, rejecting
all such as weTe twice married, and compelling them not to
take a second wife ; whereas the Church imposed no neces
sity on men, but only counselled and exhorted those, that
were able, laying no necessity upon the weak, nor rejec
ting them from hopes of eternal life." In like manner he
blames the Novatians,2 formaking the rule, which Was given
to the clergy, to be the husband of one wife, extend to all:
whereas it was lawful for the people, after the death of a
first wife, to marry a second. For though he, who was con
tent with one wife, was had in more honour and esteem by
the Church ; yet the Scripture did not condemn him, who
married a second after the death of the first, or after a di
vorce made for fornication or adultery or any such cause ;
neither did it reject him from the privilege of Church-com
munion or eternal life. And it is certain the great Council
of Nice thus determined the matter against the Novatians,8
requiring them upon their return to the Church, to make

1 Ep. Haer. xlviii. n. 9. « Id, Haer. lix. n. 4. s Con.
Nicen. can. viii.

CHAP. Xl.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 379
profession in writing, that they would submit to the decrees
of the Catholic Church, particularly in this, that they would
" Siydpoig koivojvuv, communicate with digamists," or those,
that were twice married. So that whatever private opinion
some might entertain in this matter, or whatever private
rules of discipline there might be in some particular Churches
in relation to digamists; it is evident the general rule and
practice of the Church was not to bring such under disci
pline, as guilty of any crime, which at most was only an
imperfection in the opinion of many of those, who passed
an heavier censure on it. As for such as plainly condem
ned second, third, or fourth marriages, as fornication or
adultery, I see not how they can be justified, or reconciled
to the practice of the Catholic Church : and therefore I
leave them to stand or fall by themselves, and go on with
the more uncontested discipline of the Church against some
other practices of uncleanness. Sect. 8. — Of Ravishment.
Among which they set a peculiar mark upon ravishment,
that is, using force and violence to virgins and matrons to
compel them to commit uncleanness. Constantine, in one
of his laws,1 condemns all sorts of raptors to the flames, as
well those, that ravished virgins against their wills, as those,
that stole them with their own consent against the will of
their parents. And though Constantius a little moderated
the punishment, yet he still made it a capital crime, to be
punished with death :2 and in case a slave was concerned
in it, he was left to the severity of the former law, to be burn-
' ed alive. Jovian also made it a capital crime,3 for any one
not only to commit a rape upon a consecrated virgin, but to
solicit her to marry either willingly or unwillingly against
the rules of her profession. The laws of the Church could

1 Cod. Th. lib. ix. tit. 24. de Raptu Virginum. leg. 1. 2 Ibid.
leg. ii. 3 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 25. de Raptu vel Matrimonio
Sanctimonialium. Leg. 2. Si quis, non dicam rapere, sed vel adtemptare
matrimonii jungendi causa sacratas Virgines, vel invitas, ausus fuerit, capi^
tali sententia ferietur. Set also Justin. Novel. 14. Ne sint lenones.

380 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
inflict no such punishment, but, when there was occasion,
they drew the spiritual sword against them. " If any one
offers violence to a virgin not esp<jt:sed to him, let him be
excommunicated," say the Apostolical Canons ;l " neither
shall he take any other wife, but her, whom he has so de
tained, although she be poor." St. Basil condemns those,3
who are guilty of committing rapes upon virgins, to four
years penance, as fornicators. Where by a rape he means
the lowest degree of it, that is, stealing a virgin espoused
to another man, and detaining her against her father's con
sent. In which he also orders,3 not only the raptor to be
excommunicated, but also his family, and the place or
village, where he dwelt, if they were accomplices, or aiding
and assisting to him in his usurpation. From whence we
may infer, that if stealing and detaining a virgin with her
own consent was thus punishable ; the defiling of her by
violence was a more heinous crime, and censured with
greater severity in the discipline of the Church.
Sect. 9. — Of unnatural Impurities.
What has hitherto been said, relates to the violation of
the laws of chastity in the ordinary course of nature. Be
yond which there were some monstrous impurities, consist
ing in the several species of unnatural uncleanness ; such
as the defilement of men with brutes, commonly called
bestiality; and the defilement of men with men, working
that which is unseemly, after the manner of Sodom ; and
the defilement of men's own bodies with themselves by
voluntary self-pollution. Tertullian calls all these,* impious
furies of lust, which make men change the natural use of
the sex, into that, which is against|nature ; on which the
Church laid an uncommon and singular punishment, ex-

1 Canon. Apost. lxvii. 2 Basil, can. xxii. * Basil.
Epist. 244. * Tertul. de Pudicit. cap. iv. Reliquas autem
libidinum furias impias etin corpora, et in sexus ultra jura natura, non
modo limine, verum omni ecclesia; tecto submovemus,quia non siintdelicta,
sed monstra.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 3(31
eluding them not only from all parts of the Church, but
from the very first entrance of it; because they were not
ordinary crimes, but monsters. The council of Ancyra has
two canons relating to these crimes, the first of which
orders, that they, who are guilty of bestial lusts before they
are twenty years old,1 be prostrators fifteen years, and after
that communicate in prayers only for five years ; but if they
exceed that age, and be married when they fall into this
sin, they are to be prostrators twenty-five years, and five
years after communicate in prayers only ; if they are above
fifty years old, and be married, they are to do penance all
their lives, and only communicate at the point of death.
The next canon orders,2 that they, who are guilty of bestial
lusts, and are leprous, that is, to infect others by tempting
and teaching them to commit the same sin, should pray
ei? rag x^^ofiivag, infer hyemantes" that is, either
among the demoniacs, or those, that were exposed to the
weather without the walls of the church. Suicerus thinks
this canon is to be understood of those,3 that were infected
with the corporal disease of leprosy, who by the old law
were removed without the camp; but it is more probable it
means the spiritual leprosy of those, who infected others
with the contagion of the same beastly sins, and taught or
tempted them to commit the same uncleanness. For other
wise, leprosy under the Gospel, would not deserve the ex
tremity of punishment, but commiseration and mercy. St.
Basil imposes the penance of adulterers,* that is, twenty
years penance, both upon those, that abuse themselves with
beasts, and those, that abuse themselves with mankind.
And sometimes he lengthens the term to thirty years,5 com
paring these sins with murder, idolatry, witchcraft and
adultery ; which, he says, all deserve the same punishment.'

1 Con. Ancyr. can. xvi.. * Ibid. can. xvii. Tic aXoytvaajiivsg
( KfXe^pic oi'rtxc, tjtoi XEirpwaavrag, thtsq irpokrci^Ev r] ayia avvosog eig Ttig
t %£ijita?o/j«'8c EvxEa&at. 3 Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles.Voce Af7rp6c,
i torn. ii. p. 226. * Basil, can. 62, et 63. ' Ibid. can. vii.
t Vid. Greg. Nyssen. can. iv.

382 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
The Council of Eliberis imposes a severer punishment upon
those, that so abuse boys to satisfy their lusts.1 For such
are denied communion even at their last hour. The laws
of the old Romans had provided no sufficient remedy for
these corruptions. There was an old law, called, the Lex
Scantinia, mentioned by Juvenal2 and some others: but it
lay dormant for many ages, till the Christian Emperors
came to revive it. The frequent complaints, that are made
by the Christian writers of the three first ages, Clemens
Alexandrinus,3 Justin Martyr,* Tatian,5 Minucius Felix,6
Tertullian,7 Cyprian,8 and Lactantius,9 sufficiently shew,
that these vices were practised with impunity among the
Heathen. The law made against them was only a pecuni
ary mulct ;10 and that was very rarely put in execution
against them. Suetonius says,11 Domitian in the first and
good part of his reign condemned some few offenders by
this law: but the distemper grew so raging and inveterate
afterwards, that Alexander Severus, a much better prince,
durst not effectually set about the cure of it, as Lampridius12
testifies in his life. After him Philip the Emperor, who by
some is called a Christian, made a new law to forbid it;
but the main business devolved at last upon those, that were
more undoubtedly Christians. Among whom Constantius,18
by one of his laws extant in both the Codes, made it a

1 Con. Eliber. can. lxxi. Stupratoribus puerorum nee in fine dandam
esse communionem. 2 Juvenal. Sat. ii. vers. 44. Valer. Maxim,
Hist. lib. vi. cap. 1. s Clem.Paedagog, lib. i. c. 3.
* Justin. Apol. ii. p. 50, et 67. 5 Tatian. Orat. ad Gracos,
p. 165. ad calcem Justini. " Minuc. Octav. p. 68.
' Tertul. de Monogam. cap. xii. lib. i. ad Nation, c. xvi.
8 Cvpr. ad Donat. p. 6. 9 Lactant. lib. v. cap. 9.
'° Vid. Quintilian. Instit. lib.iv. cap. 2. p. 187. Decern millia, quae poena
stupratori constituta est, &c. u Sueton. Vit. Domit. cap. viii.
Quosdam ex utroque ordinelege Scantinia condemnavit. Is Lamprid.
Vit. Alex. Severi.p. 350. Habuit in animo ut exoletos vetaret, quod postea
Philippus fecit ; sed veritus est, ne prohibens publicum dedecus in privatas
cupidates converteret; cum homines illicita magis poscant, prohibitaqiie
furore persequantur. 1S Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. vii. ad Legem
Juliam de Adulteris. Leg. iii. Cum vir nubit in feininam  ubi venus mu
tator in alteram formam  jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladfo
ultore, Ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 383
capital crime, and ordered it to be punished with death by
the sword. Theodosius added to the penalty by a severer
sanction,1 ordering, that such, as were found guilty of this
unnatural vice, should be burnt alive in the presence of all
the people. Thus the civil and ecclesiastica] laws combined
together to exterminate all sorts of uncleanness ; deterring
meii from such acts of impurity, as were a scandal to the
Christian profession, by such penalties, temporal and spiri
tual, as were thought most proper to be inflicted in order to
restrain them.

Sect. 10. — Of maintaining and allowing Harlots.
Neither was it only the direct and immediate acts of un
cleanness they thus censured and punished, but all other
acts, that opened, and prepared the way to them. Of which
kind, the maintaining or encouraging of harlots, publicly or
privately, was reckoned a most infamous practice. Great
complaints have been made by writers,2 of divers kind, of the
licentiousness of many modern popes in granting tolerations
at Rome to such lewd and wicked practices,, and receiving
annual pensions for the toleration of them. But the ancient
laws, both civil and ecclesiastical, were far from such
abuses. Heathen Rome, in this respect, was more chaste
and modest than the modern papacy.- For even there, we
find a law,3 recorded out of Papinian in the Pandects, that
whoever wittingly let his house be the place to commit for
nication or adultery with another man's wife, or any defile
ment with mankind, or made any gain of the adultery of his

1 Cod. Theod. Leg. vi. Hujusmodi scelus expectante populo flammis vin-
dicibus expiabunt. 2 Vid. Zepper. Legum Mosaicarum Expla-
nat. lib. iv. cap. 18, p. 457.
Agrippa de Vanit. Scientiar. cap. 64,
Morpaei Myster, Iniquit. p. 1310.
Wesselus Gronigens. de Indulgentiis Papalibus, ap. MornK. ibid.
8 Pandect.! lib. xlviii. tit, 5, ad Legem Juliam de Adulteris. leg, 8. Qui domum
suam, ut stuprum adulteriumve cum aliena matre familias, ve) masculo fieret,
sciens praebuerit,. vel quaestum ex adulterio uxoris suae fecerit, cujuscunque
sit conditionis, quasi adulter punitur.

384 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
own wife, should be punished as an adulterer, of whatever
condition he was. And it is remarkable in the laws of Con
stantine,1 that a man was allowed to put away his wife, not
only if she was an adultress herself, but if she was a concilia-
trix, a pander or procurer of adultery in others. By the
laws of Theodosius Junior,3 if any parent or master prosti
tuted his daughter or his maid slave, they were to forfeit all
right of dominion over them : the parties so compelled,
might appeal to the bishop of the place, or the judge, or the
defensor, and require their assistance or protection ; and if
after that, their superiors, master, or father, would go on as
panders still to compel them, their goods were to be confis
cated, and their persons banished and sent to the mines.
Socrates3 commends Theodosius the Great for another good
law, whereby he demolished the infamous houses, common
ly called Sistra, at Rome. For till his time a very evil
custom prevailed there, that when any woman was taken in
adultery, she was condemned by way of punishment to be a
common prostitute in the public stews: which kind of pu
nishment, as Socrates truly remarks, did no ways contribute
towards her amendment, but only compelled her to add sin
to sin. Therefore, Theodosius in his zeal for the piety and
purity of the Christian religion, abolished this impudent and
scandalous punishment; providing other penalties for adul
tery, and destroying these infamous houses out of Rome.
Theodosius Junior did the same good service at Constanti
nople, by a new law, ordering all panders,* who kept infa
mous houses, to be publicly whipped and expelled the city,
and that all their slaves, whom they kept for such vile pur
poses, should be set at liberty. And whereas hitherto these

1 Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. 16. de Repudiis. leg. 1. In masculis etiam, si
repudium mittant, ha?c tria crimina inquiri conveniet, si moecham, vel medica
mentarium, vel conciliatricem repudiare voluerit.
2 Cod. Justin, lib. xi. tit. 40. de Spectaculis et Scenicis et .Lenonibus.
leg. 6. Lenones patres et dominos, qui suis filiabus vel ancillis peccandi
necessitatem imponunt, nee jure frui dominii, nee tanti criminis patimur li-
bertategaudere. &c. Vid. Cod. Theod. tit. 8. de Lenonibus. leg. 2.
8 Socrat. lib. v. cap. 18. 4 Theodos. Novel. 18. de Lenoni
bus. ad calcem. Cod. Theod.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 385
wretches had kept up their trade in spite of former laws,
under pretence of paying a certain annual tax to the govern
ment out of their infamous gain ; Theodosius abrogated this
tax ; and in lieu of it, one Florentius, a nobleman, by whose
pious advice the Emperor did this, gave an equivalent out
of his own estate to the exchequer, that there might be no
deficiency or damage accruing to the public revenue, which
might afterwards be used as a plea to grant these miscreants
a new toleration. Thus these pious emperors laboured to
extirpate this abominable vice out of their two great capi
tals. And when some remainders of it continued, notwith
standing all their endeavours, Justinian resumed the matter,
reviving and confirming all the preceding laws by a new
edict of his own,1 and augmenting the punishments speci
fied in tKem, to root out this abominable way of making
provision for lewdness, throughout his whole empire. As to
the ecclesiastical laws, there is no crime they punished more
severely than this. As may be easily collected from the
canons of the Council of Eliberis ; one of which orders,2
" That if a father or a mother or any Christian exercise the
" trade of a pander, forasmuch as they set to sale the body
" of another, or rather their own, they shall not be received
" to communion, no not at their last hour." And another3
decrees, " That if a woman commit adultery by the consent
" of her husband, they shall be rejected even to the last."
The reason of this is grounded upon what Tertullian ob
serves of the law prohibiting fornication,* that it equally for
bids any one to be aiding or assisting or conscious to ano
ther in the practice of it. " For what I may not do myself?
" I may not be instrumental to have it done by others. And

1 Justin. Novel. 14. * Con. Eliber. can. xii. Mater
vel parens vel quaelibetFidelis, si lenocihium exercuerit ; eo quod alienum
vendiderit corpus, vel potius suum, placuit eas nee in fine accipere commu
nionem. 8 Ibid. can. 70. Si conscio marito fuerit moe
chata uxor, placuit nee in fiAe dandem ei esse communionem.
* Tertul. dejdololat. cap. xi. Nam quod mihi de stupro interdictum sit, aliis
ad eam rem nihil aut opera? ".'it conscientias exhibeo. Nam quod ipsam carnem
meam a lupanaribus segregavi, agnosco me neque lenocinium neque id ge
nus lucrum alterius causa exercere posse.
VOL. VI. 2 C

386 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
" therefore by the same reason, that I keep my own body
" from the common stews, I own myself obliged, neither to
" promote that infamous trade, nor raise any gain by or for
" others by such vile practices." Albaspiny rightly observes
from the forementioned canons, that this crime was esteemed
greater than fornication and adultery itself: because adulte
rers were received to the peace of the Church after a
certain term of penance, but this crime was denied commu
nion to the very last.
Sect. 11.— Of writing and reading lascivious Books.
Another way of promoting uncleanness was the writing
or reading lascivious or obscene books and plays, than which
there is no greater incentive or provocation to impurity.
And therefore as the Ancients burned and abolished all sorts
of heretical books, that they might not corrupt the faith ; so
they equally forbad the writing or reading all other pernici
ous books, which tended to debauch the morals of Christi
ans, and severely censured the authors of them, if any such
were composed by Christian writers. Socrates says,1 Helio-
dorus, a Thessalian bishop, when he was a young man, wrote
a lascivious romance, called his Ethiopics ; which, others8
tell us, occasioned a censure to be passed upon him, when
he was bishop, and he was deprived of his bishopric be
cause he would not recant it. For the same reason they
utterly discouraged the reading of such heathen books, as
were stuffed with impurities ; and some canons were made
to prohibit the cleTgy especially from conversing with such
writers, of which I have given a more ample account in a
former book.3
Sect. 12.— Frequenting of the Theatre and Stage-plays forbidden upon
this Account.
They are equally severe in their invectives against all fre
quenters of the theatre and public stage-plays upon the
same account : because these were the great nurseries of

1 Socrat. lib. v. cap. 22. s Nicephor. Hist. lib. xii. cap. 34.
Book vi. chap. iii. sect. 4.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 387
impurity, where incest and adultery were represented with
abominable obscenity, and in a manner acted over again, to
corrupt the spectators by their contagion and example.
Here, as Cyprian says,1 " adultery was learned by seeing it
acted ; provocations to vice were so much the stronger,
because they were recommended by the authority of great
examples ; the matron, which perhaps came chaste to the
theatre, returned back with a contrary disposition. The
very gestures of tbe actors were enough to corrupt men's
morals, being fomenters of vice, and purveyors cf nutriment
for corrupt distempers. Venus they represented in all her
lewd behaviour ; Mars, as an adulterer ; and their Jupiter, no
less a prince in his vices, than in his kingdom, burning with
his thunderbolts in earthly amours, sometimes shining in the
plumes of a swan, sometimes descending in a golden
shower, and sometimes sending out his eagles to fetch him
a beautiful Ganymede. Consider now whether a spectator
can be innocent and chaste in viewing such sights as these.
Men imitate the gods, which they worship, and by this means
become more wretched, because their very vices are conse
crated into religion." He speaks this against the heathen
spectators, but the main of his arguments will equally hold
against the Christian. " For the theatres by reason of their
impurities were places of unavoidable temptation ; the
devil's own ground, his own property and possession ;" as
Tertullian says,3 the devil once called them, when being
asked by a Christian exorcist, in the case of a woman, who
was seized by him at the theatre, how he durst presume to
possess a Christian, he answered confidently, I had a right
to do it, for I found her upon my own ground. Tertullian3
says further, " that the theatre is properly the temple of
Venus upon a double account, both because it was the
school of lasciviousness, and because when Pompey built his
famous theatre, he was forced to set the temple of Venus
upon it, for fear the Roman Censors should demolish it, as
they had done some others, in their concern for the morals

1 Cypr. ad Donat. p. 6. 2 Tertul. de Spectac. cap. xxvi. * Ibid.
cap. x.
2c 2

388 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
of the people, which they were sensible were corrupted by
the poison and infection of the theatres, which were no
thing else (in the opinion of the more grave and sober
Romans) but the citadel and fortress of all impure and las
civious practices." For this reason, therefore, as well as be
cause they were accompanied with idolatrous rites, Tertul
lian and all the Ancients declaim against them, and forbid
Christians to frequent them, under pain of being deemed
guilty of all the impurities of the place, and partakers of all
the lewdness committed in them. As this was one part of
their baptismal renunciation, where the impurities of the
stage were virtually renounced in renouncing the pomps of
Satan :' so it was necessary for a Christian to abstain from
them as a spectator, for fear of losing his title to Christian
communion, and being accounted a renegado to his first pro
fession. It is certain it was so in the time of Tertullian, and
when the Author of the Constitutions drew up his collec
tions.9 But in after ages, because the civil law allowed the
interludes of the theatre for the diversion of the people,
when they were purged from idolatry, but not from lewd
ness ; the Fathers contented themselves to declaim against
them with sharp invectives, and correct that reigning hu
mour by serious admonitions, which the iniquity of the
times would not suffer them to do by the more exact and pri
mitive discipline of the Church. Any one, that will consult
St. Chrysostom's,3 or Cyril's Catechisms,* or Salvian,5 may -
find this observation true, that though the canons did not
now make it peremptory excommunication for a man to fre
quent the theatre, yet the Fathers inveighed as sharply as
ever against it, for the impurity and corruption of morals,
that were the natural consequences of it. There was an
ciently a famous sight or play, called Maiuma, a considera
ble part of which diversion was, to see infamous strumpets
swim naked in the water. Whence learned men observe, it

1 See Book xi. chap. vii. sect. 2. * Vid. Constit. lib. viii.
cap. 32. ' Chrys. Horn. vi. in Mat. Horn, lxxiii. de S. Bar-
laara. torn. i. p. 893. Horn. xv. ad Pop; Antioch. ibid. p. 190.
* Cyril. Cat. Myst. i. n. 4. » Salvian. de Provid. lib. vi.
p. 197.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 389
had its name : for Maiuma, in the Syriac tongue, signifies
Water. Gothofred observes,1 and Pagi after him,8 that the
people were so eagerly bent and inclined to this obscene di
version, that though there were good reasons for abolishing
it, yet the imperial laws, from Constantine to Arcadius, varied
eight times about it ; sometimes allowing, and sometimes
restraining it ; till at last Arcadius, who had at first permitted
it, revoked his licence, and finally abolished it ; allowing
other sports for the diversion of the people, but denying them
this, as a base and unseemly spectacle.3 And under that
character, St. Chrysostom* and others, with their utmost
force and vehemence, declaim against it.
Sect. 13. — As also all Excess of Riot and Intemperance forthe same Reason.
For the same reason they made sharp invectives against
luxury, and riot, and intemperance, not only as they
were crimes in themselves, but as they were the avenues
and inlets to the greater sins of uncleanness. And there
fore, though they did not punish every single act of drun
kenness and excess with excommunication, yet they thought
ii proper to bring habits and customs of such sins under
public disciplined and censure. It is an observation of Ter
tullian,8 and a very true one, "That drunkenness and lust are
two devils, combining and conspiring together. Bacchus
and Venus are nearly allied, and too well agreed." " Drun
kenness," says one of the ancient canons,6 " is the fomenter
and nurse of all vices." And therefore it was ordered, that
if any clergyman, of the lowest degree, was found guilty of

1 Gothofr. com. in Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. 6. de Maiuma.leg. ii.
a Pagi. Critic, in Baron, vol. ii. an. 399. n. 5. s Cod. Th.
lib. xv. tit. 6. de Maiuma. leg. ii. Maiumam faedum atque indecorum specta-
culum denegamus. * Chrys. Horn. vii. in Mat. p. 71.
8 Tertul. de Spectac. cap. x. Veneri et libero convenit. Duo ista daemonia
conspirata et conjurata inter se sunt, ebrietatis et libidinis.
6 Con. Venetic. can. xiii. Ebrietas omnium vitiorum fomes ac nutrix est. —
Itaque clericum quem ebrium esse constiterit, aut triginta dierum spatio a
communione statuimus submovendum, aut corporali subdendum esse suppli-
cio. Vid. Con. Agathen. can. xii. iisdein verbis.

390 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
any single act of it, he should either be suspended from
communion for thirty days, or be subject to corporal punish
ment for his offence. This we find decreed in the Coun
cils of Agde and Vannes, as a standing rule in the French
Church. And there goes a decree, under the name of Pope
Eutychian,1 which makes the habit of drunkenness matter
of excommunication to a layman also, till he break off the
custom, by reformation and amendment. But it must be
owned, this vice was sometimes so general and epidemical,
that the numbers of transgressors made the exactness of
discipline impracticable. St. Austin complains and laments,2
that it was so in Afric in his time. Though the Apostle had
condemned three great and detestable vices in one place,
viz. rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness,
strife and envying : yet matters were come to that pass with
men, that two of the three, drunkenness and strife, were
thought tolerable things, whilst wantonness only was es
teemed worthy of excommunication ; and there was some
danger, that in a little time the other two might be reputed
no vices at all. For rioting and drunkenness was esteemed
so harmless and allowable a thing, that men not only prac
tised it in their own houses every day, but in the memorials
of the holy Martyrs on solemn festivals, and that in pretended
honour to the Martyrs also ; which was a thing, that every
one must needs lament, who did not look with carnal eyes
upon it. It is plain, St. Austin thought an habitual course
of rioting and drunkenness a crime deserving excommuni
cation, as well as fornication and adultery ; but yet in regard
to the great numbers, that were given to this sin, his advice
to Aurelius the metropolitan of Afric is,3 " that it should
be cured not with asperity and roughness, nor in the impe
rious way, but by teaching, rather than commanding, and by

LEutychian. Decret. ap. Crab. T. 1. p. 180. Qui ebrietatem vitare
noluerit, excommunicandum esse decrevimus usque ad congruam emendatio-
nem. Vid. Can.Apostol. 42, and 43. * Aug; Ep. 64. ad. Aurelium.
8 Ang. ibid. Non ergo aspere, quantum existimo, non duriter, non modo im-
perioso ista tolluntur, magis docendo quam jubendo, magis monendo quam
minando. Sic enim agendum est cum Multitudine ; Severitas autem exer-
cenda est in peccata paucorum.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 391
admonition, rather than commination. For so we must deal
with a multitude ; but the severity of discipline is only to be
exercised upon sins, when the number of sinners is not very
great." So that we may conclude, that rioting and drunken
ness was one of those great crimes, for which men were put
to do public penance in the Church, except when the mul
titude and combination of sinners madp it not feasible, and
obliged the Church to take other measures to correct it.
Sect. 14. — And promiscuous Bathing of Men and Women together.
It must also be noted upon this head, that as a preserva
tive of modesty and chastity, both the canon and civil law
prohibited men and women to go promiscuously into the same
baths together. " Let not a woman go to wash in the same
bath with men," says the Author of the Constitutions.1
And the Council of Laodieea,2 "neither clergyman, nor asce
tic, nor layman, shall wash in the same bath with women :
for this is extremely scandalous, and culpable even among
the Gentiles." The Council of Trullo repeats this canon
word for word,8 and then adds in the close, '" If any clergy
man be found guilty of this practice, He shall be deposed ;
if a layman, let him be excommunicated." The observer
tion made in these canons, " that this was a scandalous
crime even among the Heathens," is confirmed out of the
old Roman laws and writers. Varro says,* the ancient
baths were divided into two distinct buildings or apartments,
one for the men, and the other for the women to wash in.
And the same account is given by Vitruvius,5 and Charisius,
and other writers. And when the degeneracy of the follow
ing ages began to confound this distinction, Spartian says,s
Adrian made a law against promiscuous bathing. And

1 Constit. lib. i. cap. 9. ' Avtpoyvvov iri<7rjyvv>] /m) XeiaOoi. s Con.
Laodic. can. xxx. 8 Con. Trull, can. lxxvii. * Varro de LinguS
Latin, lib. 8. p. 1 Id. Publice bina conjuncta aedificia lavandi cassa ; unum
ubi viri, alterum ubi mulieres lavarentur. 6 Vitruvius de Archi
tect, lib. v. cap. 20. Charisius Grammat. lib. i. ap. Savaro. Not. in Sido-
nium. lib. ii. Ep. 2. Et Dempster Paralipomena ad Rosini Antiq. Rom. lib.
i. c. 14. 'Spartian. Vit. Adrian, p. 25. Lavacrai pro sexibus
separavit.

392 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Julius Capitolinus1 says the same of Antoninus Philosophus.
Nay, the old Romans were so careful to preserve modesty in
this matter, that Tully says,2 " They did not allow a son to
bath with his father, nor a son-in-law with his father-in-law:
nature itself teaching men, that there was a decency to be
observed in making such distinctions." And the same thing
is related by Valerius Maximus,3 and much commended by
St. Ambrose.* Now the case standing thus even among the
Heathens, it would have been extremely scandalous for the
Christians to have permitted promiscuous bathing-; and
therefore they prohibited it by their ecclesiastical laws un
der the severe penalty of excommunication. And the impe
rial laws of Justinian carried the matter a little further.5
For among other lawful causes of divorce, authorizing a
man to put away his wife, he allows this to be one, if a
woman be so intemperate and luxurious as to go into a com
mon bath with men. Private writers declaim much against
it. Epiphanius condemns it in the Jews;6 and Cyprian, not
only censures this,7 but many other acts of immodesty in
virgins, as painting, and over-nice dressing, and appearing
unveiled, against which also Tertullian has a whole dis
course,8 with some other indications of a loose and unguar
ded mind, which need not here be particularly mentioned or
further pursued. I purposely also pass over the scandalous
practice of some, who entertained their Agapetce, or love-
sisters, as they called them, with professions of the strictest
innocence and virtue ; because I have formerly had occa
sion to shew, with what severity the ancient rules con
demned this as a most suspicious and intolerable practice,9

1 Capitol. Vit. Antonin. p. 90. Lavacra mixta submovit. s Cicer. de
Offic. lib. i. n. 129. Nostro quidem more cum parentibus puberes filii, cura
soceris generi non lavantur. Retinenda est igitur hujus generis verecundia,
praesertira natura ipsa magistra et duce. 8 Valer. Max. lib. ii.
cap. i. n. 7. * Ambros. de Offic. lib. i. cap. 18. * Cod. Jus
tin, lib. v. tit. 17. de Repudiis. Leg. II. Inter culpas viri et uxoris consti;
tutionibus enumeratas, et has adjicimus, si forte uxor ita luxuriosa est, ut
commune lavacrum cum viris libidinis causa habere audeat. Vid Novel. 22.
c. xvi. s Kpiph. Haer. 30. Hebionit. n. 7. » Cypr. de Habitu
Virginum.p. 100, &c. » Tertul. de. Veland. Virgin. ' 9 Book
vi. chap. ii. sect. 13.

CHAP. XI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 393
and perfectly againfct the laws of the Gospel, which oblige
men not only to regard the preservation of tbeir innocence,
but their good-name ; " to mind things that are honest,"
that is, becoming and honourable, "and of good report;"
" to provide for honest things not only in the sight of God,
but also in the sight of men ;" and " to abstain from all
appearance of evil." In regard to which precepts, the an
cient rules not only censured open fornication and adultery,
but all such indecent actions, as had any tendency towards
them, or were justly liable to suspicion, and gave occasion
to the adversary to speak reproachfully pf that holy religion,
the honour of which Christians were obliged to maintain in
all purity, as well in word, as outward conversation ; avoid
ing this, that no one should blame them, and managing
their whole deportment with innocence and prudence, to
answer those great precepts of the Gospel," Give no offence,
neither to the Jew, nor to the Gentile, nor to the Church of
God: and, "so let your light shine before men, that they
may see your good works, and glorify your Father, which is
in Heaven."
Sect. 15.— And promiscuous and lascivious Dancing, wanton Songs, &c.
For the same reason they prohibited all promiscuous and
lascivious dancing of men and women together. The
Council of Laodicea forbids it under the name of BaXkiZuv,1
which some interpret playing on cymbals or other musical
instruments, but more commonly it is understood by learned2
men as a prohibition of wanton dancing at marriage feasts,
against which there are several other canons of the ancient
Councils, and severe invectives of the Fathers. The third
Council of Toledo forbids it under the name ofBallimathiee,3
which they interpret wanton dances, joining them with las
civious songs, the use of which they complain of as an*

1 Con. Laodic. can. liii. B Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. Voce BaWi?£U'.
Rivet, in Decalog. p. 338- Stuckius. Antiquit. Convival. lib. iii. cap. 21.
8 Con. Tolet. iii. in Edicto Regis Reccaredi. Quod ballimathiae et turpia
cantica prohibenda sunt a sanctorum solenniis. * Ibid. can. 23. Irre-
ligiosa consuetudo est, quam vulgus per sanctorum solennitates agere consue-

394 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BO°K XVI.
irreligious custom prevailing in Spain, among the common
people on the solemn festivals ; which they order to be cor
rected both by the ecclesiastical and secular judges. The
Council of Agde forbids the clergy to be present at such
marriages,1 where obscene love-songs were sung, or obscene
motions of the body were used in dancing. And by another
canon,3 "if they use any scurrility or filthy jesting them-:
selves, they are to be removed from their office." The like
canons occur in the Council of Lerida3 and some others, for
bidding to sing or dance at marriages, but feast with mo
desty and gravity, as becomes Christians. St. Ambrose ex
cellently describes the immodesty of ihis sort of dancing
used by drunken women :* " They lead up dances," says
he, " in the streets unbecoming men in the sight of intem
perate youths, tossing their hair, dragging their garments
flying open, with their arms uncovered, clapping their hands,
dancing with their feet, loud and clamorous in their voices,
irritating and provoking youthful lusts by their theatrical
motions, their petulant eyes, and unseemly antics and
fooleries. Meanwhile a crowd of youth stands gazing upon
them, and so it is a miserable spectacle indeed."
St. Chrysostom has abundance to the same purpose,6 par
ticularly in one of his Homilies he declaims against it,6 as
one of those pomps of Satan, which men renounced in their
baptism. He says, " the devil is present at such a time,

vit. Populi qui debent oflicia divina attendere, saltationibus turpibus invi-
gilant : cantica non solum mala canentes, sed et religiosorum officiis per-
strepentes. Hoc etenim ut ab omni Hispania depellatur sacerdotum et
judicum a concilio sancto curs committitur. ' Con. Agathen. can.
39. Nee his caetibus misceantur, ubi amatoria cantantur et turpia, aut
obscaeni motus corporis choreis et saltationibus efferuntur, &c.
a Ibid. can. 70. Clericum scurrilem et verbis turpibus joculatorem ab offi
cio retrahendum. • Con. Ilerdens. ap. Crab. torn. i. p. 1031. Quod
non opqrteat Christianos euntes ad nuptias plaudere vel saltare, &c.
4 Ambros. de Elia et Jejuniis. cap. xviii. Illae in plateis inverecundos viris
sub conspectu adolescentulorum intemperantium choros ducunt, jactantes
comam, trahentes tunicas, scissae amictus, nudaelacertos, plaudentes manibus,
saltantes pedibus, personantes vocibus, &c. ' Chrys. Hom. 48. in
Gen. p. 680. Hom. 56. in Gen. p. 746. Hom. 49. in Mat. p. 436. Hom. 12. in
Colos. p. 1403, &c. Horn. 18. de, Scortat. torn. v. p. 272.
* Chrys. Horn. 47. in Julian. Mart, torn. i. p.613. Horn. 21. de, Noviluniis.
torn. i. p. 296.

CHAP. XI,] CHRI$TIAN CHURCH. 395
being called thither by the songs of harlots, ^nd obscene
words, and diabolical pomps used upon such occasions."
And in another Homily, speaking of the dancing of Herodias's
daughter, he says, " Christians now do not deliver up half
a kingdom, nor another man's head, but their own souls to
inevitable destruction. By which it appears, that tbe§e danc
ings were causes of great corruption, being mixed with
ribaldry and lascivious songs and wanton gestures, which
are incentives to impurity, and wholly unhinge the frame of
the Christian temper: for which reason the Ancients are so
frequent and copious and severe in their invectives against
them." Sect. 16. — Also promiscuous Clothing.
Some canons also severely condemn the promiscuous use
of habits, or men and women interchanging their apparel,
peculiarly appropriated to their different sex. Eustathius
taught his she-disciples to wear the habit of men, under
pretence of religion ; and cut off their hair upon the like
superstitious reason. But the Council of Gangra condemned
both these practices, as great irregularities, confounding
the order of nature, and laid the heavy censure of anathema
upon them. " If any woman," says one canon,1 " under
pretence of leading an ascetic life, change her apparel,
and instead of the accustomed habit of women take that of
men, let her be anathema." And another,9 " if any
woman upon the account of an ascetic life cut off her
hair, which God has given her as a memorial of subjection,
let her be anathema, as one that annuls the decree of sub
jection." The foundation of this canon was the order given
by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. " That a woman should not be
shorn or shaven." And the foundation of the former canon
was the rule given by God to the Jews, Deut. xxii. 5. " The
woman shall not wear that, which appertaineth to a man,
neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all, that
do so, are abomination to the Lord thy God." Which the

i

1 Con. Gangren. can. xiii. B Ibid. can. xvii.

396 THE ANTIQUITIES OP THE [BOOK XVI.
ancient writers, Cyprian,1 Tertullian,9 and many others* un
derstand simply and universally of men and women inter
changing habits, as was usually done in stage plays, which
they condemned for this reason as for many others. Some
modern interpreters,* after Lyra* and Maimonides,6 think
there was a further design in this precept, to prohibit the
idolatry of the ancient Zabii, in whose magical books it
was commanded, that men should put on the women's
painted garments, when they stood to worship before the star
of Venus ; and that -women should put on the men's warlike
habit and instruments, when they appeared before the star
of Mars. But as the ancient Christian writers were not ac
quainted with this interpretation, we have reason to believe
they took the rule in the common and vulgar sense, as an
universal prohibition of men and women interchanging habits
in all cases whatsoever : it being a thing against the light
of nature and the laws of reason, as Diogenes Laertius'
words it in the life of Plato, for any one to walk naked in
public, or for a man to wear the woman's clothing. And
for this reason the Ancients prohibited it, as an indecent
and shameful thing, and as ministering occasion to unclean
ness, even when it was used under pretence of greater
strictness in religion.

Sect. 17. — And suspected Vigils, or Pernoctations of Women in Churches,
under Pretence of Devotion.
And for the same reason the ancient Council of Eliberis
forbad women to keep private vigils, or night-watches in
the dormitories, or churches ; because often under pretence
of prayer and colour of devotion, secret wickedness had
been committed by them.8 This seems to be the most

1 Cypr. Ep. lxii. al. ii. ad Eucratium. * Tertul. de
Spectac. cap. xxiii. 8 Vid. Prin. Histriomastix.
4 Spencer, de Legib. Hebr. lib. ii. cap. 17. n. 1. * Lyra
in Deut. xxii. 6 Maimon. More Nevoch, part iii. cap. 37.
7 Diogen. Laert.lib. iii. Vita Platon. p. 131. . 8 Con. Eliber.
.can. xxxv. Placuit prohiberi, ne ffleminae in ccemeterio pervigilent; eo
quod saepe sub obtentu orationis latenter sceleracommittant.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 397
rational account, that can be given of the meaning and
reason of this canon, that it was intended to cut off the oc
casion of lewdness and uncleanness, however artfully dis
guised under the mask of greater strictness in religion ;
there being nothing, that could reflect more dishonour on
the Christian name, than the allowing such opportunities of
sin under the feigned pretence of piety and devotion in their
Churches.

CHAP. XII.
Of great Transgressions of the Eighth Commandment,
Theft, Oppression, Usury, Perverting of Justice, Fraud
and Deceit in Trust and Traffic, Sse.
Sect. 1. — Of those, who taught the Doctrine of Renunciation, or having all
Things common.
The design of the eighth commandment is to secure men
in the quiet possession of their own rights and properties,
or whatever they have a just title to by the laws of God and
the community where they dwell. And therefore as many
ways as these rights may be invaded or impaired, so many
ways there are of committing robbery and transgressing
this command. There were in the ancient Church some
heretics, who, under pretence of greater heights in religion,
would allow no men to possess any thing as their own right '
and property in this world ; but obliged all men to renounce
their title to every thing, and to have all things in common ;
pronouncing a peremptory sentence against all rich men,
that unless they gave up their possessions, and forsook all,
that they enjoyed, they could not enter into the kingdom of
heaven. These men called themselves Apotactici, from re
nouncing the world ; and Apostolici, from their pretended imi
tation of the Apostles; and Encrdtitce, from their ostentation
of temperance and abstinence above other men. St. Austin1
1 Aug. de Haer. cap. xl. Apostolici, qui se isto nomine arrogantissime

398 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JBOOK XVI.
says, they would receive none into their communion,
that lived in the conjugal state, or that possessed any thing
as their property in this world ; they separated from the
Church upon this account, and would allow no man to have
any hope of salvation, that did not practice as they did ;
and therefore the Church condemned them as heretics for
laying such a doctrinal necessity upon these things, which
were left to every man's liberty in practice. The Eustathians
maintained the same doctrine, but the Council of Gangra1
condemned it as heretical, and anathematised the authors and
defenders of it. So that this was a general sort of invasion
of the rights and properties of mankind, robbing them of
every thing in an unusual and extraordinary way, not by any
open violence or secret stealth, but by turning religion into
an art, and inducing men to rob themselves of every thing
under pretence of piety and greater heights of devotion.
The factors and agents in this cause seem not to have had
any design to enrich themselves, but to make all men poor,
and bring them to a level, and lay all things common.'
which was such a scandalous representation of the Christian
religion in the eyes of the Heathen, that the Fathers
thought they could not be too severe upon it, however it
was coloured over with the varnish and disguise of holiness,
pretending a great contempt of the world, and a divine
and heavenly temper. As therefore they condemned the
doctrine for heretical, so they never failed to pursue the
abettors of it with the utmost severity of ecclesiastical cen
sure. And the imperial laws concurred with them,8 sub
jecting- these Apotactites, or Renouncers, to all the civil
penalties, that were imposed upon heretics in all other cases,
except that of confiscation of goods, which signified nothing
to those, whose very crime consisted in a perverse way of

vocaverunt, eo quod in suam communionem non reciperent utentes conjugi-
bus, et res proprias possidentes.  Sed ided isti haeretici sunt, quoniam sc
ab ecclesia separantes, nullam spem putant eos habere qui utuntur his
rebus, quibus ipsi carent. Encratitis isti similes sunt, nam et apotactitae
appellantur. Vid. Epiphan. Haer. Ixi. Apostolicor. n. 4.
1 Con. Gangren. in Praefat. * Vid. Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v.
de Haeret. leg. 7et 11.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 399
renunciation of all things, which left them nothing to
forfeit. Sect. 2.— Of Plagiary or Man-stealing.
Next to this general sort of robbery, the laws set a par
ticular mark upon that, which is commonly called plagiary,
or manstealing. The old Roman Law condemned such as
were guilty of it, either in a pecuniary mulct, or sent them
to the mines. But Constantine thought this was not a
sufficient punishment for the crime, and therefore he added
to it, and made it capital,1 ordering every such criminal to
be thrown to the wild beasts in the theatre, and if they were
likely to escape with their lives thence, to be put to death
with the sword. The ecclesiastical laws appoint no par
ticular punishment for this crime : but it being of the same
nature with murder in the law of God, it may be supposed,
that the penance of murderers was inflicted on those, that
were found guilty of it.
Sect. 3. — Of malicious Injustice.
I take no notice here of sacrilege, because though that
be a species of theft, yet the punishment of that has been
considered under another title.3 The remaining sorts of
injustice may be summed up under these four heads:—
1. Malicious injustice. 2. Simple theft. 3. Open violence
and oppression. 4. Fraud and deceit.
, Malicious injustice is doing hurt and prejudice to our
neighbour in his goods out of pure hatred and ill-will,
when we can do ourselves no benefit or kindness by it. As
when men set houses or stacks of corn on fire out of malice
and revenge to their neighbours, or poison or kill their'
Cattle, or do them any the like injury in their goods, with
out reaping any advantage from it, but Only gratifying a
spiteful and revengeful temper. The old Roman Law
adjudges all such to be guilty of capital crimes, and par-
1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xviii. ad Legem Fabiam de Plagiariis. leg. i.
Bestiis primo quoque munere objiciatur, &c. s Chap. vi.
sect. 22, &c.

400 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
ticularly those, whom they term incendiaries,1 who settowns
on fire, either out of enmity, or to make plunder and prey of
them: which sort of criminals were by way of just retalia
tion often sentenced to be burnt alive. The Ecclesiastical
Code of the ancient Church has no particular laws against
such;2 but as their crimes were often a complication of
many great sins ; enmity and malice, and theft and murder
commonly concurring in incendiaries ; so it may be pre
sumed their punishment and penance was assigned accord
ing to the nature and quality of the several offences, which
made up this compound vice, than which few can be con
ceived more heinous, because it has in it so much of the
pure malicious and diabolical temper.
Sect. 4.— Of simple Theft.
Simple theft was reckoned among the great crimes, which
brought men under public penance, and therefore there is
the more reason to conclude it of those complicated crimes.
St. Austin frequently, in distinguishing between great and
small sins,3 puts theft into the first class of heinous crimes,
for which men were to do a more formal penance in the
Church. And among St. Basil's Canons,* there is one, that
particularly specifies the time of penance : " the thief, if
he discover himself, shall do one year's penance ; if he be
discovered by others, two : half the time he shall be a
prostrator, the other half a co-stander." Only St. Austin
intimates,8 there were some circumstances, in which they
were forced to bear with this as well as other sins : he
means, when some insuperable difficulties or danger made

1 Digest, lib. xlviii. tit. xix. de Poenis. leg. xxix. Incendiarii eapite
puniuntur, qui ob inimicitias, vel prsdae causa incenderint intra oppidum, et
plerumque vivi exuruntur. 2 The first ecclesiastical laws
against incendiaries, I have met with, are the Decrees of Eugenius II.
an. 824. cap. ix. torn. vii. p. 1542. And Pope Gregory's Decretals. Lib. v.
tit. 17. de Raptoribus et Incendiariis. 8 Aug. Tract, xii. in
Joan. p. 47. Horn.' xxvii. ex 1. torn. x. p. 177. Tract, xii. in Joan.
p. 126. * Basil, can. lxi. s Aug. Ep. liv. adMacedon.
p. 95. Aliquando etiam, si res magis curanda non impedit, sancti altaris
communione privamus.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 401
it either impossible, or unadvisable, to put the discipline of
the Church strictly in execution against them.
Sect. 5.— Of detaining lost Goods from the true Owner.
Under this head they reckoned such as detained any lost
goods, which they found, from the true proprietor, when
he could lay a just claim to them. St. Austin expressly
condemns this as manifest robbery,1 " if thou hast found
any thing, and not restored it, thou art guilty of robbing
tbe true owner. He, that denies what he finds of another
man's, would take it from him if he could. In this ease
God examines the heart, and not the hands." Origen says
the same,3 " that not to restore what a man finds, is equal
to robbery; however some had the vanity to think there was
no sin in it, and were ready to ask, to whom should I
restore it, seeing God has put it into my hands V The old
Roman laws were much more equitable than the conscience
of such. For they reckon it theft to detain what a man
finds, even when they know not who is the true owner of it.
In which ease they direct him to put up a libel of inquiry
after the proprietor,3 and when he is found, to take of him
what they call 'Evperpa, and Mriwrpa, and S(J?pa, a reward
for finding and saving what was lost: though this they rather
account a dishonourable and scandalous demand, if pre
cisely exacted. St. Austin gives a very remarkable instance
of this sort of generosity in refusing the reward of finding
lost goods, in one, who was a poor Christian usher to an
heathen schoolmaster at Milan. He found a bag of money
about the value of two hundred shillings, and not knowing
who was the owner, according to law, he put up a libel

1 Aug. Hom. xix. de Verbis Apost. torn. x. p. 138. Quod invenisti, et
non reddidisti, rapuisti. Quantum potuisti, fecisti : quia plus non potuisti,
ided plus non fecisti. Qui alienum negat, si posset, et tolleret.  Deus
corinterrogat, non manum. 2 Orig. Hom. iv. in Levit. p. 119*
Peccatum hoc esse simile rapinae, si quis inventa non reddat, &c.
• Digest, lib. xlvii. tit. ii. de Furtis. leg. xliii. n. 9. ex Ulpiano. Quid
ergo si eOperpa, quae dicunt, petat? Non hie videtur furtura facere, etsinoa
probe" petat aliquid.
VOL. VI. 2 D

402 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
publicly to inquire after him.1 For he was sensible he
ought to return it, though he knew not as yet to whom.
The man, who had lost the money, upon notice given in the
libel, comes to him, and tells the marks, the condition of
the bag, the seal, and the sum, and receives his own again.
And with great joy, thankfulness, and gratitude, offers him
the tithe, twenty shillings, as his requital and reward ; bnt
he would not accept it. He offers him ten ; but he would
not accept it. He intreats him, however, at least, to take
five ; but he refused. Upon which, the man in anger cast
down his bag, and said, I have lost nothing : if thou wi}t
receive nothing of me, I have lost nothing. What a brave
contention, says St. Austin,2 what a prize, what a strife and
noble conflict was this, where the whole world was the
theatre, and God the spectator! at last the man is subdued
by mere importunity, and prevailed upon to accept what
was offered him ; but he immediately gave it all to the
poor, and would not carry one shilling of it home with him
to lay up for his own private use. By this relation we may
judge, how great a crime it was reckoned to conceal or de
tain what was lost from the right owner, since even the
exacting any reward for finding it was reputed dishonoura
ble and scandalous, and some ancient canons set a particu
lar mark of infamy upon it, as a species of filthy lucre.
" Men ought not," says Gregory Thaumaturgus,8 " to
exact a reward for saving or discovering, or finding any
thing, that was lost, but to live without filthy lucre."
Sect. 6. — Of refusing to pay just Debts.
They put into the same class all such, as refused to pay
their just debts, especially such, as used any base and sinis
ter arts to excuse themselves from the payment of them.
1 Aug. de Verbis Apost. Serm. xix. p. 138. Memor legis proposuit
pitacium publice Reddendum enim sciebat, sed cui redderet ignorabat, &c.
3 Ibid. Quale certamen, fratres mei, quale certamen, qualis pugna, qualis
conflictus : theatrum mundus, spectator Deus. 3 Greg. Thaum.
can. x. ap. Bevereg. Pandect, torn. ii. p. 34. M^rt prjvvTpa, n ouvpa, %
fiSperpa airair&VTtg, &e.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 403
It was usual with many Jews to pretend to become converts
to Christianity, only to shelter themselves from their credi
tors, and the justice of the law in many criminal eases also,
by claiming the privilege of sanctuary in the church. To
correct which abuse, Arcadius made a law,1 that no such
practice should be allowed: but that they should be re
pelled from the church, and not be received till they had
faithfully discharged all their debts, and demonstrated their
innocence in other respects, as a necessary qualification for
their admission. In some cases indeed, when men were
unable to pay their debts, the Church in charity was in
clined to protect them : but then, in that case, she was also
obliged to pay their debts, as appears from several laws
made in that behalf;3 and from the instance, which St.
Austin3 gives of his own Church paying the debts of one
Fastius, who fled from his creditors to her protection : and
this case of necessity was very diff'erent from that fraudulent
and criminal refusal of paying- debts when men Jay under no
such straits and difficulties. As therefore the one was
matter of commiseration, and made men objects of pity
and compassion : so the other made them odious and abo
minable, as deceitful villains, and rendered them fit objects
of legal severity, and ecclesiastical censure.
Sect. 7. — And what Men are bound to by the Obligation of Promise
and Contract.
Among just debts they always reckoned those, which men
contracted by the obligation of promise and mutual en
gagements to each other : and therefore all breach of faith
in such cases, came under the denomination of theft, and
was accordingly punished as a species of that transgression.

1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 45. De his qui ad ecclesias confugiunt. leg. ii.
Judaei, qui reatu aliquo, vel debitis fatigati, simulant se Christianae legi
velle conjungi, ut ad ecclesias confugientes vitare possint crimina, vel pon-
dera debitorum, arceantur; nee ante suscipiantur, quam debita universa
reddiderint, vel fuerint innocentia demonstrata purgati.
s Ibid. leg. i. Publicos debitores, si confugiendum ad ecclesias credtderiht;
aut ilicd extrahi de latebris oportebit, aut pro his ipsos qui ens occultare
probantur episcopos exigi. Vid. leg. iii. ibid. 8 Aug. Ep. 215.
2 D a

404 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
The Council of Eliberis applies this particularly to such
parents as break the espousals or ante-nuptial contracts, to
which they have agreed in behalf of their children:1 for
which offence they are obliged to abstain three years from
the communion. This in effect was a robbery committed
both upon persons and things, depriving the man of his
wife, and the woman of her husband, and each of them of
all those rights and benefits, that might have accrued to
them by such matrimonial contracts. For which reason it
was ranked among those more heinous thefts, and perfidi
ous injuries offered to men's rights, which were thought to
deserve a public censure.
Sect. 8. — Of removing Bounds and Landmarks.
And among these, the removing or defacing ancient
bounds and land-marks, was accounted no small crime.
Even among the old Romans it was punished as a capital
offence. Numa Pompilius divided the Roman fields by
certain marks erected of stone, which they called " Lapides
Sacri," because they were consecrated to Jupiter; and the
covering or transferring these was reckoned such an offence,
that any one, who was taken in it, might lawfully be slain,2
as a sacrilegious person. The law of God lays a curse
upon it, Deut. xxvii. 17, "Cursed be he that removeth his
neighbour's land-mark." Constantine Teckons it among
those criminal actions, which were to be punished in an ex
traordinary way,3 as Pithaeus and Gothofred have observed
from an old remark made upon the sentences of the famous
lawyer Paulus, which says, " In eum qui per vim terminos
dejecerit, vel amoverit, extra ordinem animadvertitur .-"
upon which the annotator says, that the same thing was de
termined by Constantine in the Theodosian Code. Which
makes Gothofred conclude, that either that law is wanting
1 Con. Eliber. can. liv. Si qui parentes fidem fregerint sponsaliorum, trien-
nii tempore abstineant se a communione, &c.
1 Vide Calvin. Lexicon Jurid. Voce, Fines. 8 Pithaeus Annot. in
Collal. Legum Mosaicar. et Roman, tit. xiv. Gothofred. Paratit. in Cod. Th.
lib. ii. dePinibus Regundis. tit. xxvi.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 405
now in the Theodosian Code, or else that it refers to Con
stantine's first law under that title, which says, " Invasor
ille potnee teneatur addictus, — such an invader shall be
liable to punishment," though the particular manner of
punishment be not expressed. However, it was a crime of
that nature, as to require a peremptory punishment without
appeal, as appears from another law of Constantine's in
the same Code.1 The ecclesiastical law always condemned
this as a cursed crime from the law of God : " Cursed be he
that removeth his neighbour's land-mark." And, " Remove
not the ancient land-mark, which thy fathers have set."
Under this title they also censured all such ambitious
bishops, as not content with the limits of their own dioceses,
invaded the territory of others, and endeavoured to bring
places out of their district under their jurisdiction. Pope
Innocent,3 writing to a bishop upon such an occasion, re
minds him of what the Scripture has so often said, " That
we ought not to remove the bounds, which our fathers have
set," and therefore admonishes him to quit his pretensions,
unless he was minded to feel the severity of ecclesiastical
censure. Sect. 9.— Of Oppression.
This sort of robbery may also be reckoned under another
species of theft, which th<s law calls compound theft, because
it joins something of violence or oppression to the robbery.
Such as hostile invasion, robbing with arms upon the high
way, breaking houses in the night, piracy at sea, cruel ex
actions of judges, and other publie officers, above what the
law allows, perverting of justice by bribery or rigorous
interpretations of the law, together with extortion and un
just usury. All which the law condemns under the general
name of oppression, and the ancient canons make it matter
of excommunication. The fourth Council of Carthage has3
one canon forbidding the priests to receive any oblations
1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 1. de Accusation, lib. i. Qui fines aliquos in-
vaserit, publicis legibus subjugetur, neque super ejus nomine ad scientiam
nostram referatur. s Innoc. Ep. viii. ad Florentium.
8 Con. Carth. iv. can. 94. Eorum, qui paupercs opprimunt, dona a sacerdoti-
us refutanda.

406 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
from those, that oppress the poor: and another, appointing1
such as denied to the Church the oblations of the dead, or
refused to pay them without difficulty and trouble, to be
excommunicated, as murderers of the poor. Agreeable to
which is thatof St. Chrysostom,3 directing his clergy not to
admit any cruel or unmerciful man to the Lord's table: " al
though it be a general, although it be a governor or consul,
although it be he, that wears the crown, prohibit him: thou
in this case hast greater power than he." And again, in
veighing against oppressors, who offered alms out of what
they had violently taken from others, he says elegantly,3
" that God will not have his altar covered with tears ; Christ
will not be fed with robbery; such sort of sustenance is
most ungrateful to him: it is an affront to the Lord, to offer
unclean things to him : He had rather be neglected, and
perish by famine, in his poor members, than live by such
oblations. The one is cruelty, but the other is both cruelty,
and an affront likewise. It is better to give nothing, than
to give that, which of right belongs to other men." After
the same manner St. Austin answers the plausible apologies
of spoilers and oppressors. " Their plea was, I make*
feasts of charity, I send meat to them, that are bound in
prison, I cloth the naked, I entertain strangers. Do you
imagine this is properly giving ? Do not take from others,
and then you may be said to give. He, to whom you give,
rejoices; but he, from whom you take, laments; which
of the two will God hear 1 You say to him, to whom
you give, give thanks,, because you have received. But
he, on the other hand, from whom you have taken
it, says, I mourn : you keep almost the whole, and give
a small portion to the other. If, therefore, you give to
the poor what you take from others, God is not pleased
with such works. God says to thee, Thou fool, 1 com
manded thee to give, but not that, which is another man's.
1 Con. Carth. iv. can. 95. Qui oblationes defunctorum aut negant ecclesiis,
aut cum difticultate reddunt. tanquam egentium necatores excommunicentur.
2 Chrys. Hom. lxxxii. al. 83. in Mat. p. 705. 3 ld. Hom. lxxxvi. al.
lxxxvii. in Mat. p. 722.
4 Aug. Horn. xix. ex. 50. torn. a. p. 137. Agapes facio, vinctis in carcere
viclum initto, nudos vestio, peregrinos suscipio. Dare te putas? &c.

CHAP. XII.j CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 40T
If thou hast ought, give of that, which is thine own:
if thou hast not of thine own to give, it is better thou
shouldest not give, than spoil some to give to others." He
says in another place,1 some were so vain as to think, that a
little alms before they died would effectually expiate all
their sins, however wicked and rapacious they had been
all their lives before : against whom he disputes accurately
and sharply in several Books3, which it would be needless
here to cite at large. I only add, that agreeable to those
rules the Author of the Constitutions under the name of
the Apostles, giving directions to bishops about tbe persons,
from whom they were to receive oblations at the altar, or
refuse them, among many other criminals, orders them to
reject those, who afflict the widow, and oppress the father
less by their power,3 and fill the prisons with innocent per
sons, and evil intreat their servants with stripes, famine or
hard bondage ; and lay waste whole cities ; all lawyers, that
plead for injustice or unrighteous causes; all unrighteous
judges; all wicked publicans, and usurers, and soldiers, that
are false accusers, and not content with their wages, but
oppress the poor.
Sect. 10. — Of the Exactions and Bribery of Judges.
And that this was agreeable to the common disci
pline of the Church, will appear by examining the par
ticulars. To begin with that, which was the most flagi
tious and intolerable, the oppression committed by judges
in their office, partly by cruel exactions partly by feigned
accusations, and partly by perversion of justice , for the
sake of bribery and filthy lucre: which sorts of oppres
sion the law commonly terms, Crimen Repetundarum, et
Peculatus. For though Peculatus often signifies robbing
the public by private stealth, yet it sometimes also denotes
the oppressions and injuries done by magistrates to the sub
ject. In which case the censures of the Church were often

1 Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. xxi. cap. 22. 2 Ibid. lib. xxi. cap, 27,
Et in Enchirid. cap. lxxv. et lxxvi. Serm. xxxv. de Verbis Domini. Cont.
Julian. Pelag. lib. v. cap. 10. Vid. plura ap Gratian. Caus. xiv. Quaest. 5,
ct 6. 8 Constit. lib. iv. cap. 6.

408 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI
inflicted upon oppressing governors. As we have a famous
instance of Synesius1 excommunicating Andronieus, the
governor of Ptolemais, for his violent oppression of the
people. The imperial laws were also very numerous, and
very severe in this case, to secure the rights and properties
of the people from such violent invasion. They did not
indeed allow the subject, for some time, to accuse the
magistrate during the year of his administration : but Theo
dosius took off even that restraint,3 and not only gave men
liberty, but invited and encouraged men of all orders to
bring informations against corrupt judges, if they had either
suffered any violence from them themselves, or knew them
to be guilty of bribery, or setting justice to sale, or any the
like improbity : and that as well in the time of their admi
nistration as afterward ; promising a reward to any, that
should make good such charges against them. The like
encouragement was given by Constantine3 and Valentinian
Junior,* as appears by their laws now extant in the Theodo
sian Code. And whereas the punishment of such corrup
tion in the magistrate was only a pecuniary mulct before
Theodosius, by a new law made it death5, as thinking no
punishment too great for such an offence. At Carthage they
had a peculiar good custom, which tended much to dis
courage all such rapacious practices in their magistrates.
For Prosper tells us,6 that every year the new pro-consul
' Synes. Ep. 57. p. 172. 2 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 27. ad Legem
Juliam Repetundarum. leg. 6. Jubemus, hortamur, ut si quis a Judice fuerit
aliqu& ratione concussus; si quis scit venalem de jure fuisse sententiam ; si
quis poenam vel pretio remissam, vel vitio cupiditatis ingestam ; si quis pos-
tremo quicunque de causa improbum Judicem potuerit adprobare; is vel
administrante eo, vel post administrationem depositam, in publicum prodeat,
crimen deferat, delatum adprobet : cum probaverit, et victoriam reportatu-
rus et gloriam. s Cod. Theod. lib. 9. tit. i. de Accusationibus.
leg. 4. 4 Cod. Th. lib. ix. tit. 27, ad LegemJuliam Repetundarum
leg. 7. * Cod.Th. lib. ix. tit. 28. de Crimine Peculatus. leg. i.
Pridem fuerat constitutum, ut hi judices, qui peculatu provincias qiiassavis-
sent, multie dispendio subjacerent; sed quoniam nee condigna crimini ultio
est, nee par poena peccato, placuit— capitaie hoc esse, atque animadversione
severissima coerceri. 6 Prosper, de Promissionibus Dei, sive Gloria
Sanctorum in Peroratione. In calculis eberneis nomina pro consulum cons-
cripta Carthagirie in foro coram populo a praesenti judice sub certis
vocabulis citabantur, et erat solennis dies, Albi Citatio. Hi, qui

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 409
was used upon a certain day, which they called, Albi Cita-
tio, to read over a list of the governors, that had been before
him : and then they, that had been just in their administra
tion, and gone through their office without covetousness, or
rapaciousness, or any such flagrant crimes, were honoured in
their absence by the applauses of the people: but on the other
hand, they whom covetousness had driven into scandalous
measures of robbery and violence, were noted with marks of
infamy by general hissings and reproaches.
Sect. 11. — Of the Exactions, of Publicans, and Collectors of the Public
Revenues, and other Officers of the Roman Empire.
The laws were equally severe against all super-exactors,
as they are called, of the public revenues. The common
burden of tribute and taxes was generally hard enough,
even as settled by law, in the Roman government:1 but the
illegal exactions of the publicans and collectors made it a
much more intolerable burden. Therefore the laws were
forced to restrain and chastise their oppressions with great
severity. Constantine made several laws to this purpose,3
condemning this crime as a capital offence, according to
Gothofred's interpretation of severe punishment. Valenti
nian and Valens, obliged the exactor to make restitution
fourfold to the injured party,3 and condemned the judge in
the same quadruple sum, if he refused upon complaint to
do him justice. But Arcadius, finding that this law of Valen
tinian did not effectually put a stop to these exorbitant de
mands, made it death for any exactor to go beyond his
bounds.* And Honorius, some years after, joined both pu-
araritiam superantes, rempublicam fideliter egerant absque fiagitiis facinori-
busque, etiam absentes honorabantur: eos vero quos rapacitas vicerat, po
pulus convitiis sibilisque notabat.
1 Vid. Lipsium de Magnitudine RornanS. lib. ii. cap. 1, 2, &c. ! Cod.
Theod. lib. viii. tit. 10. de Concussionibus Advocatorum. leg. i. Item. lib. xi.
lit. 1. de Annona et Tributis. leg. iii. et lib. xi. tit. 7. de Exactionibus
leg. i. et lib. iv. tit. 12. de Vectigalibus. leg. i. 8 Cod. Th. lib.
xi. tit. 16. de Extraordinariis. leg. xi. Obnoxius quadrupli repetitione
teneatur, Ac. * Cod. Th. lib. xi. tit. 8. deSuperexactionibus. leg. i. Si
quis exactorum superexactlonis crimen fuerit confutatus, eandem poenam
subeat, quae Divi Valentiuiani sanctione dudum fuerat definita. Capitis nam-

410 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
nishments together, ordering the exactor to be put to death
and quadruple restitution to be made out of his estate to the
injured person ;a laying a fine withal of thirty pounds of gold
upon any judge, that neglected to put the law in execution.
Now what the civil law so severely condemned, there is no
question but that the ecclesiastical law punished in the spi
ritual way, with equal severity, under the general name of
oppression.
Sect. 12. — Of the Exactions of Advocates, and Lawyers, and Apparitors
of Judges.
There was another cruel way of oppression under colour
of law, much practised by advocates and lawyers, com
monly called, Scholastici et Defensores, and the appa
ritors and officers of the civil courts, and attendants
of judges. Their exactions, and extortions upon men's
necessities, are frequently complained of, and provided
against by several laws. The law allowed them certain
stated wages, or canonical pensions, as the term is, for
pleading and managing causes : but beyond these they often
made no scruple to exact maintenance for themselves and
their horses, wherever they came, in the city, or in mansions,
without any pay ; which super-exactions are particularly
noted in advocates and officers by Constantius,2 as instances
of insatiable covetousness: and therefore he gives orders
to judges to defend the people from such extortions, and
not suffer their injuries and encroachments to go unpunish-
que periculo posthac cupiditas amovenda est, quae prohibita totiens in his-
dem sceleribus perseverat. ' Cod. Th. lib. xi. tit. 7. de Exactionibus.
leg. xx. Si in concussione possessorura exactores fuerint deprehensi, ilico
et capitali periculo subjaceant, et . direptorum quadrupli poena ex eorum
patrimonio eruetur, &c. Vid. ibid, tit.8. de Superexactionibus. leg. ii. etiii;
ejusdem Honorii. It. lib. ii. tit. 26. de Discussoribus. Leg. i. &c. lib. xiii.
tit. ll.de Censitoribus leg. vii, et x. Et Valentiniaui iii. Novel. 7. deln-
dulgentiis reliquorum. 2 Cod. Th. lib. viii. tit. x. de Concussioni-
bus Advocatoruin et A pparitor'um. leg. ii. Praeter sollemnes et canonicas
pensitationes multa a provincialibus Afris indignissime postulanturabofficia-
libus et scholasticis, non modo in civitatibus singulis, sed etmansionibus,dum
ipsis etanimalibus eorundem alimoniae sine pretio ministranlur, &c. Pro
vinciates itaque cuncti judices tueantur, nee injuries inultas transire p«-
mittant.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 411
ed. Constantine reflects upon the like extortions of advo
cates in making wicked bargains with their clients,1 to make
over to them the best of their lands, their cattle, and
their slaves ; which he calls spoiling and pillaging
those, that stood in need of their patronage ; and
orders, that such rapacious vultures, as Gothofred terms
them, should be expelled the court and never after be
allowed the liberty of pleading. Another way, whereby
wicked advocates were wont to oppress the poor, was, by
encouraging their clients to draw their adversaries in a civil
cause from the cognizance of the ordinary judges to a
military tribunal, where they had more liberty by bribery,
and other corrupt practices, to oppress them. Great com
plaints are made, by Ammianus Marcellinus,3 of this sort of
depredation made upon the poor in the time of Valens, who,
he says, opened the doors to robbery, which gained
strength every day by the pravity of the judges and advo
cates, who sold the causes of poor men to the rulers in the
army, or such as bore sway in the palace, by which means
they increased their wealth, or brought themselves to pre
ferment. To correct this abuse, Arcadius made a law,3 that
whoever transferred a civil cause from the ordinary judges
to a military court, should be liable to banishment, besides
other penalties inflicted by former laws ; and the advocate
concerned in such a cause, should forfeit ten pounds of
gold, except they had a special license from the Emperor
for such a removal. Valentinian III. added to this, that
1 Cod. Th. lib. ii. tit. 10. de Postulando, leg. i. Advocatos, qui con-
sceleratis depectionibus sus opis egentes spoliant atque denudant, non jure
causae, sed fundorum, pecorum et mancipiorum qualitate rationeque tractatfi,
dum eorum pnecipua poscant coacta sibi pactione transcribi, ab honestorum
coetu, judiciorumque conspectu segregari praecipimus. Vid. Cod. Justin.
lib. ii. tit. 6. de Postulando. leg. v. s Ammian. lib. xxx. p. 448.
Laxavit rapiiiarum fores, quae roborantur indies judicum advocatorumque
pravitate, qui tenuiorum negotia militarisrei rectoribus, vel intra palatium
validis venditantes, aut opes, aut honores quaesivere praeclaros.
s Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. 1. de Jurisdictione. leg. ix. Si quis neglectis
judicibus ordinariis, sine ccelesti oraculo, causam civilem ad mill tare ju
dicium credideret deferendam, prater poenas ante promulgatas, intelligat se
deportationis sortem excepturum. Nihilominus et advocatum ejus decern
libris auri condemnatione feriendum.

412 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
the advocate should lose his office,1 and the counsellor be
banished also. And there were many other laws made by
Theodosius, Valentinian junior, and Mareian, to the same
purpose, which the curious reader may find in Gothofred
upon the forementioned law of Arcadius. It is true, the
Ecclesiastical Law does not particularly specify these
things ; but we may suppose, they being great crimes, were
included in the general notion of illegal oppression, which
was thought to deserve ecclesiastical censure.
Sect. 13.— Of griping Usury and Extortion.
But there is one sort of oppression, which the laws of
the Church more particularly take notice of, and condemn
both in the clergy and laity, that is, griping usury or ex
tortion upon the poor. The nature of usury, and the
several degrees of it, I have had occasion already to explain.
in a former book:2 all, therefore, I shall here take notice of,
is the censures of the Church passed upon all, that were
guilty of what they reckoned cruel and criminal in it. The
Council of Eliberis not only orders the clergy to be de
graded, who were found guilty of taking usury, but threatens3
excommunication to every layman, that after admonition,
persisted in the practice of it. And the first Council of
Carthage gives this reason, why clergymen should not
practise it, because it was a thing, that was culpable in lay
men. And the reason, why it was so generally condemned
by the Ancients even in laymen, was, because it was
generally a great oppression of the poor, to whom the
charity of lending without usury was due ; and many times
it was attended with extortion, as in the centesimal interest,
which was twelve in the hundred ; and what they called
Hemiolia, which was receiving half as much more as the

1 Valentin. Novel, de Episcopali Judicio. tit. xii. Causidicum officii
amissio, jurisconsultuin existimationis et interdictae civitatis danina percel-
lant. ! Book vi. chap. ii. sect. 6. * Con. Eliber. can. xx.
SI quis etiam laicus accepisse probatur usuras, si in e& iniquitate duraveril,
ab ecclesia sciat se esse projiciendum. * Con. Carth. i. can. 13.
Quod iu laicis reprehenditur, id mullo magis in clericis oportet praedamnari.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 413
principal by way of interest, both which were condemned
by the laws of the State as illegal exactions, and downright
extortion. Upon which bottom all the arguments and in
vectives of the Ancients are founded. So that usury in
this sense was reckoned a plain robbery of the poor, and a
cruel oppression of those, to whom mercy and charity
ought to be shewn upon all occasions. And to this we
may join all extortion made by force or fear, which the
civil law condemns and annuls,1 though a covenant or
promise had been obtained of the injured party.
Sect. 14. — Of Forgery.
The last sort of robbery, was that, which was committed
by fraud and deceit, which the law calls Dolus Malus, and
Stellionatus, from Stellio, that little animal with shining
spots like stars, the lizard, or tarantula, of which naturalists9
observe, that there is no animal, which more fraudulently
envies man than this: for changing his skin every year,
which was reckoned a sovereign remedy against the falling-
sickness, he devours it himself, lest men should have the
benefit of it: whence the lawyers call all imposture and
fraud, which has no special title in law, by the name of
Stellionatus,3 as Ulpian explains it : thus if a man mort
gage or pawn that, which is already engaged, fraudulently
dissembling the former obligation ; or pass it away in ex
change, or pretend to pay debts with it, when it is under a
pre-engagement ; all such frauds are called Stellionatus.
So if a man change the wares, which he has sold, or corrupt
them, or direct them to another use after he has pawned
them ; or if he used any collusion or imposture to compass the
death of any man, this was reckoned a fraud of the- same
1 Cod. Th. lib. ii. tit. 9. de Pactis. leg. iv. Pacta quidem per vim et
metum apud omnes satis constat cassata viribus respuenda.
9 Plin. lib. xxx. cap. 10. Nullum animal fraudulentiiis. invidere homini
tradunt: inde stellionum nomen aiunt in maledictum translatum, &c.
8 Digest, lib. xlvii. tit. 20. Stellionatus leg. iii. Ubicunque titulus criminis
deficit, illic Stellionatus objicimus. Maxime autem in his locum habet: si
quis forte rem alii obligatum, dissimulate obligatione, per calliditatem alii
distraxerit, vel permitaverit, vel in solutum dederit, &c.

414 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
nature. If in giving a pawn, he substituted brass in the
room of sold : if he sold a freeman under the notion of
O 7
a slave ; if he received a sum of money as a debt, that was
really paid him before; he was liable to be punished upon
an action of fraud upon the same title ;• and for his crime,
if he was a plebeian, he might be condemned to the mines;
if a person of quality, he might be sent into banishment,
or be degraded. The instances of such frauds and col
lusions are too many and intricate, to be here particularly
recounted, but the chief of them may be summed up under
these five titles, forgery, calumny, flattery, deceitfulness in
trust, and deceitfulness in traffic.
Forgery may be committed either in counterfeiting coin,
to impose upon the unskilful and unwary ; or else in counter
feiting deeds and instruments, to lay claim to other men's
estates, as is done by those, who make a title upon false
wills or bonds, or conceal or corrupt the true ones. The
counterfeiting of the coin, was not only an injury to private
men in commerce, but also an act of treason against the
supreme powers : and therefore punished as a capital offence
with confiscation, banishment, or death, and that sometimes
of the cruellest sort, burning alive, as appears from several
laws in the Theodosian Code made upon this occasion.2
Particularly Constantine,3 in one of his laws, orders such to
be put to the sword, or burnt alive, or to be punished with
some such violent death, whether they were guilty of clip
ping the coin, and diminishing its quantity, or adulterating
its quality, and vending it as good by manifest fraud and
imposture. And what the law punished thus severely in
the state, there is no question but that it was with equal
severity in the spiritual way censured, and condemned as a

1 Vid. Calvin. Lexicon Juridicum, Voce, Stellionatus. 2 Cod.
Theod. lib. ix. tit. 21. de Falsa Moneta.leg. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6.
3 Ibid. tit. 22. Si quis solidi circulum incident, vel adulteratum in venden1-
do subjecerit. leg. i. Aut capite puniri debet, aut flammis tradi, vel ajia
paena mortifera. Quod ille etiam patietur, qui mensuram circuli exterioris
adraserit, ut ponderis minuat quantitatem; vel figuratum solidum adulters
imitatione in vendendo subjecerit. Vid. Digest, lib. xiii. tifc 7. de Pignora-
tititt Actione. leg. 1, et 16.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 415
fraud and robbery by the Church. The counterfeiting of
false deeds, and especially false wills, was esteemed an
heinous crime even by the old Roman laws, of which there
is a whole title in the Pandects ;! one of which, related by
the famous lawyer, Julius Paulus, says,2 whoever conceals a
will, or conveys it away, or destroys it, or puts another in
its room, or cancels it ; or whoever writes, or signs, or
fraudulently produces a false will, is liable to be punished
upon an action of forgery, by the Cornelian law. And that
punishment is either banishment, or confiscation,3 or death
according to the quality of the offender. Arid by the laws
of Constantine the same punishments of banishment and
death were awarded to this sort of forgery* And though
the Ecclesiastical Laws do not particularly specify the
punishment of this crime, yet they must be supposed to
comprehend it under the general title of theft and robbery,
which made men liable to ecclesiastical censure.
Sect. 15. — Of Calumny with Regard to Men's Estates and Fortunes ; and
its Reverse, the Fraud of Flattery.
Another sort of fraud that might be committed against
men, in order to rob them of their estates and fortunes, was
impeaching them of feigned crimes, by false accusation and
calumny. This sometimes affected men's lives, and then it
was a species of murder, and punished under that denomi
nation, as has been shewn before. Sometimes it affected
their fame and reputation, and as such it will be considered

1 Digest, lib. xlviii. tit. 10. de Lege Cornelia de Falsis.
* Paulus ibid. leg. ii. Qui testamentum amoverit, celaverit, eripuerit, dele-
verit, interleverit, subjecerit, resignaverit : quive testamentum falsum scrip-
serit, signaverit, recitaverit dolo malo, cujusve dolo malo id factum fuerit,
legis Cornelias poena damnatur. a Ibid. leg. i. n. 13. Poena
falsi, vel quasi falsi, deportatio est, et omnium bonorum publicatio: et si
servus eorum aliquid admiserit, ultimo supplicio adfici jubetur.
* Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xix. ad Legem Corneliam de Falsis. leg. 1, et 2.
Capitali post probationem supplicio (si id exigat magnitudo commissi) vel
deportatione ei qui falsum commiserit imminente.
Vid. Cod. Justin, lib. x. tit. 13. De his qui se deferunt.
Leg. i. Occultator gestorum in insulam deportetur, &c.

416 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
hereafter. In this place, we take it only as affecting men's
estates and fortunes, and as an intention by fraud, to rob
them of their property and possessions. In which sense, the
law sometimes takes calumny and false accusation, as a spe
cies of theft and robbery, and proscribes it under that title.
Asappears from that law of Valentinian and Gratian, in the
Theodosian Code, which joins these three sorts of calumny
together,1 viz. against men's fame and reputation, against
their fortunes, and against their lives: ordering, that who
ever impleaded another upon any of these three heads,
should undergo the same penalty as he intended to bring-
upon the party he impeached, if he proved to be a false ac
cuser, and did, not fairly make out his action. Against such
calumniators, fraudulent informers, and false accusers,
whose chief aim was in a plausible way, and under pre
tence of legal process, to come at other men's estates there
are two or three whole titles more in the Theodosian Code,2
where such accusers and impeachers are called the bane of
human life, and the common pest of mankind : and they are
ordered to be prosecuted to the last degree with confiscation
and death. The ecclesiastical law also enjoins them a se
vere penance. By a Canon of the Council of Eliberis,3 " he,
that bears false witness against another to the loss of his
life or liberty, is not to be received to communion even at his
last hour." And if it was in a lighter cause, as in a pecu
niary matter or the like, he was to do penance for five
years, before he was reconciled and perfectly restored to the
peace of the Church. St. Austin also reckons this sort of
calumny among the species of robbery and oppression.* And

1 Cod. Th. lib. ix. tit. 1. de Accusationibus. leg. xi. Qui alterius famam,
fortunas, caput denique et sanguinem in judicium devocaverit, sciat, sibi im-
pendere congruam poenam, si quod intenderit, non probaverit.
s CodfTh. lib. ix. tit. 39. de Calumniatoribus. It. lib. x. tit. 10. de Petitio-
nibus et Delatoribus. leg. i. ii. iii. x. xxxiii. &c. Et tit. 12. Si vagum peta-
tur mancipium. s Con. Eliber. can. lxxiii. Delator si quis
extiterit fidelis, et per del ationem ejus aliquis fuerit proscriptus vel interfec-
tus, placuit eum nee in fine accipere communionem. Si levior eausa fuerit,
intra quinquennium accipere potuit communionem. * Aug.
Ep. liv. ad Macedon.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 41 T
the author of the Constitutions,1 giving directions to the bi
shop what sort of persons he should reject from the com
munion, among others mentions soldiers, who are false ac
cusers, and not content with their wages, but oppress the
poor. Adulation and flattery is the reverse of calumny, and yet
by these means some made a shift by fraudulent arts, to get
themselves made heirs to dying persons, to the prejudice of
those, who had a more just and real title. To prevent which
sort of fraud, Valentinian made a law,2 that no ecclesiasti
cal person or ascetic (for the fraud was chiefly committed
by them) should clancularly resort to the houses of dying
widows or orphans, to get their estates, or any legacies to be
settled upon them : which if they did, they were liable to
be prosecuted at law by the deceased parties next, relations :
they were to enjoy nothing, that they had so fraudulently ob
tained, under pretence of religion, from any such persons,
either by way of donation and gift, or last will and testa
ment ; but the legal heirs might make their claim, and set
aside all such legacies ; or otherwise they were to be confis
cated to the publie. There are two laws of Theodosius also
much to the same purpose.3 And the Fathers are so far from
complaining of the seeming hardship of these laws, that
they rather complain of the fraud and avarice, and rapacious-
ness of those, who gave occasion to these pious emperors
to make such laws against them. St. Ambrose says,* such
men were guilty of violence, and invasion of the rights of
1 Const, lib. iv. cap. 6. 9 Cod. Th. lib. xvi. tit. 2. de
Episc. et Clericis. leg. xx. Ecclesiastici, aut ex ecclesiasticis, vel qui con-
tinentium se volunt nomine, nuncupari, viduarum ac pupillarum domos non
adeant: sed publicis exterminentur judiciis, si posthac eos affines earum vel
propinqui putaverint deferendos. Censemus etiam, ut memorati nihil de ejus
mulieris, qui si privatim sub praetextu religionis adjunxerint, liberalitate
quficunque, vel extremo judicio possint adipisci, &c. Vid. leg. xxi. ibid.
8 Ibid. leg. xxvii. et xxviii. * Ambros. Ser.
vii. de Clericis. p. 232. Nemo nos invasionis arguit, violentiae nullus accu-
sat? Quasi non interdum maj orem praedam a viduis blandimenta eliciant,
quam tormonta : non interest apud Deum, utrum vi, an circumvention e quis
res alienas occupet, dummodo quoquo pacto tenet alienum. Vid. Librum
cont. Symmachum.
VOL. VI. 2 E

418 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
others : they made a greater prey of widows, by their blan
dishments and flatteries, than others did by torments : but
it was all one before God, whether a man seized the sub
stance of others by force, or by circumvention, so long as
he detained what of right belonged to other men. In like
manner St. Jerome :l" I am ashamed to say, that the idol-
priests, and stage-players, and horse-racers, and harlots,
may be left heirs, whilst clerks and monks Only are prohi
bited by this law ; and that not by persecuting tyrants, but
Christian princes.. Neither do I complain of the lavv, but it
grieves me to think we should deserve such a law. The
caution of the law is provident and severe, and yet our cove
tousness is not restrained thereby. We evade the laws by
feoffments in trust : and as if the edicts of emperors were
greater than those of Christ, we are afraid of their laws,
whilst we contemn the Gospels. It is evident by these com
plaints made by these holy Fathers, that this fraudulent way
of catching at the estates of widows, by fawning arts and
assentation, (whence these flattering hypocrites were com
monly called Hceredipetce and Captatores,) was esteemed no
less a theft, than that which was committed by open vio
lence and oppression. This was a scandalous sort of theft
even among the heathens;3 Juvenal often spends his satiri
cal wit upon it : and so does Martial, and Seneca, and Pliny,
and Lucian,3 and many others. Which makes it less won
der, that the Christian laws should proscribe it, and the fa
thers so sharply inveigh against it, even when it looked like
a means of augmenting the revenues of the Church. But
that shews the purity of the ancient discipline, that they
1 Hieron.Ep. ii. ad Nepotianum. Pudet dicere, sacerdotes idolorum, mi-
mi, et aurigae, et seorta haereditates capiunt ; solis clericis ac monachis hac
lege prohibetur : et non prohibetur a persecutoribus, sed a princibus Chris-
tianis. Nee delege conqueror, sed doleo cur meruerimus hanc legem. 
Pi-ovida severaque legis cautio : et tamen nee sic refra?natur avaritia. Per
fidei commissa legibus illudimus : et quasi majora sint Imperatorum scita
quam Christi, leges timemus, et evangelia contemni.nus. Vid. Ep. iii. ad
Nepotian. et Ep. xxii. adEustoch. It. Leo et Majorian. Novel 8. Insidiosa
munuscula dirigiintur, suborn&htur medici, qui prava pursuadeant, &c.
* Juvenal. Sat. v. ver. 98. Sat. vi. ver. 40. Sat. x. 202. * Vid.
Calvin. Lexicon Juridicutn, Voce, Captare.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 419
would not spare a crime, that could appear with s© fine an
aspect ; being utter enemies to all scandalous and disrepu
table ways of increasing the clerical maintenance, as I, have
had occasion to shew in several instances, in speaking more
particularly of the revenues of the Church.
Sect. 16. — Of Deceitfulness in Trust.
Another sort of fraud is committed in matters of trust, as
when a steward or servant embezzles his master's goods, or
makes fraudulent and injurious bargains for him; or when a
guardian or tutor, who is entrusted with the execution of a
dead man's will, acts an unfaithful part, and enriches him
self out of what was designed for the maintenance of
others ; or when a man denies, or conceals, or refuses to re
store any thing, that was deposited with him, and committed
to his trust. The Ancients were extremely conscientious in
this last instance of things committed to their trust, inso
much as that Pliny himself can inform us,1 that it was one
part of their solemn business every Lord's day to bind them
selves with a sacrament, or an oath, not to commit any
wickedness, theft, robbery, adultery; not to falsify their
word; not to deny any thing wherewith they were intrusted,
when they were required to deliver it up again. And there
fore we may reasonably conclude, that no one was thought
qualified for communion in such a society, who was guilty
of breach of faith in any such trust, which was both against
the laws of common justice, and his own solemn engage
ment. Some trusts were of a more sacred nature, being
designed for the service of God and the poor, an unfaithful
ness in such trusts was therefore reckoned a double and a tri
ple crime, because it added, as it were, murder and sacri
lege to the injustice. Upon this account the fourth Council
of Carthage calls those,2 who endeavour to defraud the

1 Plin. lib.x. Ep. 97. Seque sacramento nonin scelus aliquod obstringere,
sed ne furta,ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne
depositnmappellatiabnegarent. s Con. Carth. iv. can. 95.
Qui oblationes defunctorum aut negant ecclesiis, aut cum difficultate reddunt,
tanquam egentium necatores, excommunicentur.
2 E 2

420 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
Church of such legacies or oblations, as were left her by the
dead, murderers of the poor; because their robbing the
Church of that, which was given for the maintenance of the
poor, was in effect to starve and famish the poor: and for
such fraud and cruelty they are subjected to the censure of
excommunication. Among the Epistles of Cyprian, there
is a letter of Cornelius, bishop of Rome,1 to Cyprian, giving
him an account of one Nicostratus, a deacon, whom he
charges with this sort of fraud: for he had not only cheated
his temporal patroness, whose affairs he managed, but had
carried away a great part of the revenues of the Church,
which was entrusted with him as archdeacon for the mainte
nance of poor widows and orphans ; for which crime he was
forced to fly from Rome, for fear of being called to give an
account of his rapine and sacrilege. And Cyprian himself
in another Epistle,3 giving an account to Cornelius of the
wickedness of Novatus, says, he had defrauded the widows
and orphans, and denied the Church's revenues, which were
entrusted with him ; for which, and many other crimes, as
starving his own father, and causing his wife by a sudden
blow to miscarry, he had certainly been removed not only
from his seat in the presbytery, but from all communion
with the Church, had not the approach of a fierce persecu
tion put a stop to his trial and condemnation. By which it
appears, that there was no crime more heinously resented
than this of unfaithfulness in trust, nor any more severely
pursued and punished by the censures of the Church.
Sect. 17.— Of Deceitfulness in Traffic.
The last sort of fraud is that, which is committed in traf
fic and commerce, between buyer and seller. The buyer
may be guilty either in taking advantage of the ignorance
of the seller, when he knows not the true value of his own
goods ; or in taking advantage of his necessity, when his
poverty compels him to sell at an under-rate ; or in paying
1 Ap. Cypr. Ep. xlviii. al. 50. 8Cypr. Ep. xlix. al.52.ad
Cornel, 97. r

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 421
him in false and corrupt coin, which is the same thing as
defrauding him in the original contract. This last sort of
fraud was severely punished by the Roman laws, both
heathen and Christian. For the vender, as well as the forger
of false coin, is condemned in all the penalties of fraud,
recounted in the Pandects.1 And Constantine made it a
capital crime,3 not only for any one to adulterate, or clip, or
diminish the coin, but also to pass any such away knowingly
in payment to others, to put a wilful cheat upon them. And
though this be not expressly and particularly specified in
the ecclesiastical law, yet being a principal fraud, it must
be comprehended under the general titles of frauds, which
came under the cognizance of the spiritual jurisdiction. For
fraud was always reckoned a crime of the first magnitude;
St. Austin3 puts it in the same class with murder, adultery,
fornication, theft, and sacrilege : and Tertullian joins it with*
the great sins of blasphemy, idolatry, apostacy, murder and
adultery, which defile the temple of God, and unqualify men
for Christian communion. As to the buyer's overreaching
the seller, by taking advantage of his ignorance or unskil-
fulness in the just value of his commodity, this being a
thing not easy to be discovered or proved, it may be sup
posed to be a fraud rather left to his own conscience, than
ordinarily brought under public discipline. Yet certain it is,
a conscientious man will not load his soul even with this
guilt. St. Austin gives a rare instance of singular justice
in this case.5 He says, he knew a man, who having a book
offered him to be sold at an under-rate by one, who under
stood not the true value of it, gave him the just price of it ;
surprising him by an uncommon generosity and equity,

1 Digest, lib. xiii. tit. 7. dePignoratitiaActione. leg. i.etxvi. lib. xlviii-
tit. 10. ad legem Corneliam de Falso. leg. ix. s Cod. Theod
lib. ix. tit. 22. Si quis solidi circulum inciderit, vel adulteratum in vendendo
subjecerit. leg.i. Capite puniri debet, aut flammis tradi, vel alia poen
mortifera, si quis mensuram circuli exterioris adraserit, vel figuratuni soli-
dum adulters imitatione in vendendo subjecerit. „ 8 AuS-
Tract, xii. in Joan. torn. ix. p. 126. * Tertul. de Pudicit.
cap. xix. Cont. Marc. lib. iv. cap. 9. * Aug, de Tnnit. Ub,
jtiii. cap. 3.

422 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
which allows no man to take advantage of another's igno
rance ; though it be against the general maxim of the
world, which loves to buy cheap, and sell dear, (as the mimic
said, when he undertook to divine and tell all men their
wishes,) whatever evil consequences may attend it.
On the other hand, fraud may be committed also by the
seller, and that several ways ; either by over-rating the com
modity to the ignorant and necessitous buyer, which is also
extortion and oppression ; or by vending corrupt wares,
which are not really and truly what they are said or appear
to be, which is a fraud in the quality ; or by using false
weights and measures, which is a fraud in the quantity of
the thing- contracted for, and which is commonly branded
with this note in Scripture, that " it is an abomination to the
Lord." The old Roman laws were exceeding careful about
this matter of just weights and measures.1 The Ediles were
obliged to examine them; the standards of both were reli
giously kept in the Capitol : and thence, afterward, in Chris
tian times, they were removed and placed under the custody
of bishops in the churches, as appears from Justinian's2
Pragmatic Sanction, and one of his Novels to this purpose.8
Every city, and mansion, or place of custom, had likewise
their public standards, as well to prevent the frauds of the
exactors of tribute, as those of others in private contracts,
one with another. To which purpose there are several laws
of Theodosius,* and Honorious,5 and Valentinian III.6 and
Majorian,7 in the Theodosian Code. And very severe and
capital punishments are there appointed for all such as were
found guilty of fraud in altering or corrupting the public
standard. The Church has not many particular laws about
' Vid. Digest, lib. xlviii. tit. 10. ad Legem Corneliam de Falso. leg. xxxii.
s Justin. Pragmat. Sanct. cap. xix. s Justin.
Novel, cxxviii. cap. 15. * Cod. Th. lib. xii. tit. 6. de Suscep-
toribus. leg. xix. In singulis stationibus et mensurae, et pondera publice
conlocentur, ut fraudare cupientibus fraudandi adimant potestatem. It. leg.
xxi. 6 Cod.Th. lib. xi. tit. 7. de Super Exactionibus. leg. iii.
6 Cod. Th. lib. xii. tit. 6. de Susceptor. leg. xxxii. It Novel.
Valentin. etTheodos. xxv. de Pretio Solidi. ' Majorian.
Novel, i. Vid.Sidon. Apollinar. lib. v. Ep. 7. et Cassiodor. lib. v. Ep. 39.
lib. xi. Ep. 16.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 423
this in her discipline: but it being a flagrant crime in the
eye of the state, we may presume she punished offenders in
this kind, by the general laws against fraud, without speci
fying" all particular cases. The author of the Constitutions,1
gives a general rule about this matter, when he orders the
bishop to reject the oblations of all such as were noted by
the eommon name FaSwpyol, fraudulent dealers : and he
more particularly marks the AoXopirpai, those that used fraud
in measures, and the ZvyoicpSxcu, that is, such as though they
did not use false weights, and balances of deceit, yet used
a more sly art and fraud, in giving a turn to the scale with
their fingers, to gain that by artifice and sleight of hand in
weighing, which they durst not venture to do by false
weights. Constantine also take notice of this fraud iu one of
his laws,2 where he forbids the receivers of tribute to use ariy
art with their fingers to press down the scale, but to be ex
act in poising and libration, that no one might complain of
any injustice done him. And it is observable, that Julian,3 to
prevent such frauds in weighing, appointed a standing offi
cer in every city, whom he calls by a Greek name Zygostates,
that is, the public weigher, or supervisor of the scale, who
was to determine all controversies arising about weight be
tween buyer and seller, and put an end to them by examin
ing what was suspected, by the publie standard. And the
care of an heathen emperor, to correct frauds and abuses of
this nature, made it more reasonable for the Church to look
into them, and bring delinquents of tills kind tinder penance
by the power of ecclesiastical censure.
The author of the Constitutions likewise takes notice of
the other sort of fraud, which may be committed in traffic
by dissembling the ill qualities of things, and vending cor
rupt wares under the notion and appearance of that which is

1 Constit. lib. iv. cap. 6. « Cod. Th. lib. xii. tit. 7. de
ponderatoribus. leg. i. Aurum quod infertur, aequa lance et libramentis pari
bus suscipiatur : nee pondera deprimant, &c. 8 Ibid. leg. ii.
Placet, quem sermo Graecus appellat, per singulas civitates, constitui Zygps-
tatten, ut ad ejus arbitrium et ad ejus fidem, si qua inter vendentememptorem-
que in solidis exorta fuerit contentio, dirimatur.

424 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
perfect and good. As when a man puts off brass for gold,
or a mixture of water or other liquor for pure wine. There
fore in his directions to the bishop, whose oblations he shall
receive, and whose refuse at the altar, he says, in the first
place, he shall reject those, whom the Greeks call, KairnXot ;
and the Latins, Caupones ,- by which he does not mean
victuallers strictly, or merchants, or tradesmen in general;
though the words be so sometimes taken ; but fraudulent
hucksters, who corrupt and adulterate their wares, to make
the greater gain and advantage of them. As appears from that
passage, which, according to the Septuagint, he quotes out
of Isaiah, i. 22. 'Ot KaiTrjXoi o-s juio-yso-t tov dlvov T<j) vSari, thy
hucksters mingle wine with water. Lactantius1 argues this
point acutely against Carneades, the heathen philosopher,
who taught, that if a man has a fugitive slave, or an in
fected and pestilential house, which he sets to sale, he is
"bound in prudence not to discover their faults: because if
he does, he shall either sell them for little, or not at all.
Which he calls poisonous doctrine, and shews it at large to,
be both against the rules of Christian justice, and prudence
also. For nothing can be more valuable to a man than
keeping innocence and good conscience. Upon this account
St. Hilary says,2 whoever either designs, or commits fornica
tion, or murder, or theft, or fraud, or rapine, makes his body a
den of thieves. Some of the Ancients, indeed,3 are a little
more severe against negotiating in any trade, except a ma
nual art, for gain, because of the danger of fraud, that sticks
so close between buying and selling : but Pope Leo more
favourably distinguishes between honest and filthy gain,* and
says the quality, of the gain either excuses or condemns the
tradesman. So that it was not all trade and merchandize
that they condemned as simply unlawful in itself, but only
1 Lact. lib. v. cap. xvii. et 18. 2 Hilar, in Psal. cxviii. cxxxix.
p. 278. Corpora, cum cogitamus aut agimus stupra, caedes, furta, falsitates,
rapinas, speluncam latronum constituimus. s yid. Tertul. de
Idol. cap. xi. Epiphan. Expos. Fid. u. xxiv. Auctor operis imperfecti in
Mat. xxi. xii. * Leo. Ep. xciii. ad Rustic, cap. ix. Qua
litas lucri negociantem aut excusat, autarguit: quia est honestus quaestus
aut turpis.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH 425
when it was accompanied with such fraudulent practices, as
made it an unconscionable gain, and no better than a plau
sible theft, and more artificial way of robbery.
The last sort of fraud in the seller is committed by over
rating his commodity ; which is done either by monopo
lizers, when a single man, or a body of men, get the sole
power and propriety of any commodity into their own hands,
and set What arbitrary price they please upon it ; or when
the seller takes the advantage of the ignorance or necessity
of the buyer to enhance his price, and make a gain of his
weakness, his poverty, or his indiscretion. Against the
fraud of monopolizers, there is a famous law of the emperor
Zeno in the Justinian Code,1 where he first forbids any sin
gle man to monopolize any wares under the penalty of con
fiscation of all his goods, and perpetual banishment of
his person : and then proceeds to inhibit any body of men
to combine in any unlawful contract not to sell their goods
but at a certain rate, under the penalty of forfeiting forty
pounds of gold : he likewise prohibits all artificers and work
men from combining among themselves, that if any one un
dertook a work for another man, and left it unfinished, no
one of the same occupation should meddle with it to finish
it without the consent of the first undertaker ; which was
an art of raising their labour to what arbitrary price they
were pleased to set upon it. To obviate which fraud, and
the difficulty, which honest men thereby lay under, he dis
solved all such unlawful contracts and combinations, and
left men at perfect liberty, when they were deserted by one
workman, to employ another, without any fear or molestation
arising from the pretence of any pre-engagement.
The other way of enhancing the price, by the seller's
taking advantage of the buyer's ignorance or indiscretion, is
what no laws could well provide against in all cases : and
therefore it was rather left to the equity and conscience of
men, -to be examined and judged by the divine law, than

1 Cod. Justin, lib. iv. tit. 59. de Monopoliis. leg. i. Si quis monopolium
ausus fuerit exercere, bonis propriis expoliatus, perpetuitate damnetur ex-
ilii, &c.

426 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
brought under any certain rules of human judgment. How
ever, being a species of fraud, and extortion, and oppres
sion, it is probable the governors of the Church took occa
sion in many notorious cases to condemn it under the gene
ral title of 'PaSiSjoyt'tt, that base craft, and gain that is gotten
by imposture in any kind, for which the bishop in the Con
stitutions is required to debar men from making their obla
tions at the altar.1
And to this head may be reduced the selling of that, to
which the seller himself has no just title; as the selling of
fugitive slaves belonging to another master, which the law
forbids,2 both because it is a sort of plagiary in the seller,
and an imposition upon the buyer, and an encouragement
to the slaves to rob and pillage, and desert their proper
masters. Such is also the selling things of no real worth,
but a mere fraud and imposture; as, the taking money for
calculating nativities, and telling of fortunes, and divining
for things lost, and many the like vain practices, which the
canons condemn, not only as curious and superstitious arts,
but as fraudulent,3 and cheating tricks, imposing upon men
by cozenage and imposture. All which, and a thousand
other ways of pillaging, oppressing, and defrauding, the
Church in her discipline censured as direct methods of com
mitting theft and robbery.
Sect. 18 — Of abetting and concealing Robbers ; and buying stolen
Goods, &c.
But besides the direct ways of committing this sin, there
were several other base and disallowable practices, which
virtually and by just construction might be interpreted theft,
as the harbouring, abetting, and concealing robbers; buy
ing of stolen goods ; leading an idle life, without any law
ful vocation ; spending in prodigality or unlawful gaming,
that, which was designed for the maintenance of others
All which either the laws of Church or state censured as so
many indirect ways of encouraging or committing robbeTy.
1 Constit. lib.iv. cap. 67 s Cod. Justin, lib. ix. tit. xx.
ad Legem Fabiam de Plagiar. leg. 6. 3 Con. Trull, can. 61.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 4"27
The laws of the state laid a severe penalty upon all,, that
sheltered any criminals in any kind whatsoever. Valenti
nian in one law condemns them as associates with the cri
minals,1 and makes them liable to the same punishment. In
another law he particularly condemns such as harbour rob
bers and screen them from public justice ; making them9
liable either to corporal punishment, or confiscation of all
their goods, according to the quality of their persons. And
if any agent or steward sheltered them without his lord's
knowledge, he was to be burnt alive. There is another law
of Marcian to the same effect in the Justinian Code,3 shewing
how men are to be treated, who entertain robbers, and use
force to protect and defend them.
They who bought stolen goods, knowing them to be such,
were also deemed guilty of partaking in the theft, because
this was an encouragement to robbers, and a sort of appro
bation of them. St. Chrysostom,* and St. Austin,5 make
this remark upon those words of the Psalmist, " When thou
sawest a thief, thouconsentedest unto him," that to shew a
liking to the thief, is the same thing as committing the rob
bery. And certainly none can shew a greater liking to him,
than he, who for a little filthy lucre gives encouragement to
him by trafficking and negotiating with him, as some critics
observe the Arabic translation literally renders the phrase of
the Psalmist. There is but one case in which the casuists
allow men to buy of a known thief, and that is when he can
do it for a small matter with an intent to restore what is
stolen to the true owner. For in that case he intends not
the encouragement of the thief, but the interest and advan
tage of the just proprietor. And for this they allege the6

1 Cod. Th. lib. ix. tit. xxix. leg. 1. Eos, qui secum alieni criminis reos
ocoulendo sociarunt, par atque ipsos reos poena expectet. 2 Ibid.
leg. ii. Latrones quisquis sciens susceperit, vel offerre judiciis supersederit,
supplicio corporali, aut dispendio facultatum, pro qualitate persona? ex
judicis aestimatione plectatuf. Si vero actor, sive procurator domino igno-
rante occultaverit, et judici offerre neglexerit, flammis ultricibus concreme-
tur. 8 Vid. Cod. Justin, lib. ix. tit. 41. De his qui latrones
occultaverint. leg. 2. * Aug. in Psal. xlix. torn. viii. p. 194.
sChrys. in Loc. torn. iii. p. 301. 6 Vid. Lessium de Jure et
Justit. lib. ii. cap.. xiv. p. 171.

428 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
known rules of the civil law. But in all other cases to ne
gotiate with thieves is to partake in their sin, and to encou
rage and strengthen them in their subsequent villanies.
Therefore this and all other ways of partaking and co-ope
rating with thieves, of which there are various methods
noted and summed up by the doctors,1 in the schools,2 were
anciently computed in the general account of theft and
fraud, and accordingly punished with ecclesiastical cen-

Sect. 19.— Idleness censured as the Mother of Robbery.
Neither was it only the associating and partaking with
robbers, which they thus condemned, but all such unlawful
vocations, or rather want of vocation, as put men in a man
ner upon the necessity of stealing, and having recourse to
fraud^and violence, as the only support of a dissolute life.
Idleness they esteemed the mother and nurse of theft, and
a life without employment as no better than that of a com
mon robber : because men of that character were only
fruges consumere nati, born to devour that which of right
belonged to others. Therefore the laws both of Church and
state are very severe against all such. There is a law of
Valentinian Junior, in the Theodosian Code,3 against young
stout, lusty beggars, who being slaves or freedmen able to
work, yet fled from their masters to Rome, to skulk in
corners, and live as drones upon false charity : whom he
orders to be examined, and if they were found able to work
they should either become the possession of the informer,
who discovered them, or be returned to their original mas
ters, who had a good action in law against any, who either
harboured such fugitives, or by their counsels instigated
them to desertion. Justinian inserted this law into his
Code likewise,* and set forth a new edict of his own to the

1 Aquin. 2a. 2». Quaest. lxii. art. 7. 2 Jussio, consilium,
consensus, palpo, recursus participans, mutus, non obstans, non manifest-
ans. s Cod. Th. lib. xiv. tit. 18. de Mendicantibus uon invali-
dis. leg. 1. * Cod. Justin, lib. xi. tit. 25. de Mendicantibus
validis. leg. I.

CHAP. XII. J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 429
same purpose. The Church also was very careful in this
matter, not to suffer stout idle wandering beggars to devour
the revenues of those, that were really infirm and poor.
Upon this account she forbad any of her clergy to rove
about the world, or wander from one diocese to another
without letters dimissory, as some did, under the scandalous
name of Bai«nmf3oi, men out of business, as I have had
occasion to show more fully in another place.1 She obliged
all her monks and men of the ascetic life to live upon their
own labour. Insomuch that a monk, who did not work,
was looked upon as a thief and a defrauder, as Socrates3
tells us the Egyptian fathers were used to express them
selves concerning such as eat other men's bread for nought.
St. Austin wrote a whole book to prove this to be the pro
per duty of a monk,3 to live upon his own labour, where he
answers all objections, that can be made to the contrary.
And there are innumerable passages in other ancient wri
ters upon the same topic, to which I have referred the reader
in discoursing upon the rules of the monastic life in a
former book.* Here I shall only add one noted passage of
St. Ambrose, where he gives rules and directions for dis
pensing charity with prudence only to such as really want-it.
There ought to be, says he,5 a due measure observed in
liberality, that our charity be not useless : and this mode
ration is chiefly to be regarded by bishops and priests, that
they do not dispense, the Church's treasure, to importunate
beggars, but as the justice and necessity of the case requires:
for none are commonly more greedy in their petitions than
such as those. Many come a begging, who are lusty and
strong; many come, who have no other reason, but an idle
vagrant humour ; who would evacuate the subsidies of the
poor, or empty their chests, and consume what is laid up
for their maintenance : neither are they content with a little,
but require great largesses ; they appear as gentlemen in
their dress, and make that a means to promote their petition,
1 Book vi. chap. iv. sect. 5. 2 Socrat. lib. iv. cap. 23.
* Aug. de Opere Monachorum. cap. 17, &c. * Book vii.
chap. iii. sect. 10. 6 Ambros. de Offic. lib. iv. cap. 16.

430 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI,
and pretending to be men of good birth, they make use of
that as an argument to gain a greater contribution. If any
one is too easy in giving credit to such as these, he will
quickly defeat those useful methods, which are taken for the
maintenance of the poor. Therefore a moderation is to be
observed in giving; that neither such may be sent away
empty, if really in want; nor the livelihood of the poor be
turned into another channel, to become a spoil and prey to
the frauds of the crafty. It is plain from such accounts as
these, that they looked upon an idle life as no better than
living upon the spoils of the poor, and a robbery of the
worst sort ; because it often joined fraud and cruelty to the
theft, making use of false pretences to divert the current of
men's charity from the widow and the fatherless, and turn it
to themselves ; who had no necessity but what they volun
tarily made to themselves, either by their idleness, or luxu
rious and prodigal way of living : the supporting of which
was an arrant theft and robbing of the poor, which is the
height and extremity of cruelty and oppression. And there
fore as the laws of the state made idleness in vagrants an
actionable crime, A'pyiag Siktj the law itself terms it: so the
rules of the Church brand it as an infamous way of living,
and worthy of ecclesiastical censure.
Sect. 20. — And Gaming, as an Occasion of Fraud, and Ruin of many
poor Families, who by these Means were reduced to the greatest Exi
gence. To this they added gaming, as another way of cheating
and defrauding ; and that in a double respect, because men
thereby were inclined to cozenage and deceit, and often
ruined their families, who by this means were reduced to
the greatest poverty and want by the dissoluteness and folly
of a wicked parent. There might be many other reasons
for declaiming against this vice, as that it is a reproachful
way of dissolute living, and spending men's time in luxury,
condemned by many wise and sober heathens ; that the old
Roman laws punished gamesters with banishment, and many
other severe penalties -,1 that gaming inclines men to many

See Bishop Tayjox. Duck. Dubit. book iv. chap. i. p. 776.

CHAP. XII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

431

great and horrible vices, as covetousness, perjury, lying,
cursing and swearing, anger and passion, quarrelling and
murder, and rioting and intemperance of all sorts : but I
consider it here only as attended with the evil effects of
fraud and consumption of men's estates, which involves
many poor families in ruin, in which notion it is a down
right theft and robbery. And as such it was anciently pro
hibited by the rules of the Church, not only to the clergy,
but the laity also. " If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon,"
says one of the Apostolical Canons,1 " spend his time at dice
or in drinking, let him either refrain or be deposed." And
the next canon adds, " if any subdeacon, reader, or singer
do the like, let him be, excommunicated, and laymen also."
And so the Council of Eliberis separates all gamesters in
general from the communion.2 " If any Christian, play at
dice or tables, let him be restrained from communicating ;
but if he leaves off and amends, after a year's penance he
may be reconciled." Albaspinaaus thinks the reason of the
prohibition was,3 because the dice had the images of the
heathen gods, as Venus, &c. imprinted on them instead of
numbers, and that men in their play called upon them for
good fortune : but if so, I conceive, a greater penalty would
have been imposed upon them, as upon idolaters, by this
Council. Therefore it is more reasonable to suppose, that
the Council considered gaming as a mispending of men's
useful time, and consumer of their fortunes, and destruction
of their families, and an inlet to fraud and covetousness, and
all the forementioned vices ; and under that notion, con
demned such as made a trade and business of it, and not a
diversion. Upon this account St. Ambrose pronounces*
the gain that is got by dice and gaming to be no better
than theft, or unmerciful and griping usury, and that the
man, who gives himself to it, leads the life of a savage
wild beast. And Justinian made a law,5 that no one should
1 Can. Apost. 42. al. 35.
* Con. Eliber. can. 79. Si quis fidelis alea, id est, tabula luserit, placuit
eum abstinere : et si emendatus cessaverit, post annum poterit reconciliari.
* Albaspin. in Loc. * Ambros. de Tobia. cap. i.
Cod. Justin, lib. iii. tit. 43. de Aleatoribus. leg. i. Victum in aleaelusu non

432 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
be obliged to pay what he lost at dice ; or if he had paid itj
he or his heirs might recover it at law of the winner or his
heirs for thirty years after and longer. Or, if he did not re
claim it, any one else might do it, or the chief magistrate
of the city, the defensor, might exact it, and lay it out
upon some public work or building for the use of the city.
And in such games, as were permitted,1 he allowed the
richest to play for no more than one shilling, and
others only in proportion to their substance. And this
was a very wise law, considering the complaint, which
St. Jerom makes,2 that whilst men play for vast sums, and
stake their whole estates at once, the poor stand naked and
hungry before their doors, and Christ perishes and is starved
to death in his poor members for want of their relief. Nay
many times their own flesh and blood, their families and re
lations are ruined by their folly in one night, And what
character or punishment could be thought too bad for such1?
"He that provides not for his own, and especially those of his
own house, has denied the faith, and is worse than an infi-
deh" And for this reason both the civil and ecclesiastical
laws were so severe against dice and gaming, because of
such evil consequences so commonly attending them, when
they are undertaken for undue ends, and pursued by false
measures, only to serve men's fraud and filthy lucre. Other
wise, to play yepovrixojQ, as old men used to play, for diver
sion, and not for lucre,3 is what wise and good men have
always innocently done without any reproach or censure.
And so I have done with the several sorts of theft and rob
bery, which are great transgressions of the eighth com
mandment; by which we may judge of the mistake of those,
who confine the discipline of the Church to the punishment
of three capital crimes, idolatry, adultery, and murder : for
it will be hard to bring theft under any of those denomina-
posse conveniri: et si solvent, habere repetitionem tam ipsum quam haeredes
ei adversus victorem et ejus haeredes, idque perpetuS et etiam post triginta
annos, &c. ' Vid. Ibid. leg. 2. s Hieron. Ep. xii. ad
Gaudentium. Posita dum luditur area, stat pauper nudus atque esuriens ante
fores, Christusque in paupere moritur. s See Bishop Taylor.
Duct. Dubit. book iv. chap. i. p. 776.

XIH.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 43*3
" tions, unless we say all theft is covetousness, and covetous
ness is idolatry. But in that large sense of idolatry, which
is serving- our own affections more than God, not only covet
ousness, but adultery and murder will be idolatry also. And
then all crimes might be resolved into one, and the Church
had nothing to do but to punish one crime under different
species of adolatry : which does by no means rightly explain
her discipline, which makes idolatry a distinct crime against
a command in the first table of the decalogue, as disobe
dience to parents, adultery, murder, and theft, are against
the second table ; and according to this order I have hither
to considered them in this discourse.

CHAP. XIII.
Of great Crimes against the Ninth Commandment, False
Accusation, Libelling, Informing, Calumny and Slander,
Railing and Reviling, #c.
Sect. 1.— Of False Witness.
The intent of the ninth commandment is to secure out
neighbour's credit from injury by spreading false reports
concerning him to the prejudice of his good name arid re
putation. This is sometimes done in a public manner, by
bearing false witness against him: and then it is adding
perjury to the calumny, and sometimes theft and murder
also : for it may affect not only his credit, but his fortune,
and his life too ; as it did in the case of Naboth, who was
stoned to death upon a false accusation, " Naboth did blas
pheme God and the king." And so our Saviour and many of
his disciples after him, suffered by the malicious and false
imputations of their enemies, the Jews and Heathens. The
greatness of the crime in these respects has been already
shewn under the several titles of perjury, theft, and mur
der: here I only consider it as an injury to men's reputation,
which being a thing dear and valuable to all men, the laws
VOL. vi. 2 f

434 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
were very careful to secure men in the quiet enjoyment of
it, and punish all base attempts to ruin and destroy it. Aulus
Gellius tells us,1 the punishment of false-witness among
the Romans, by the law of the twelve tables, was to cast
,the criminal head-long from the top of the Tarpeian Rock :
and he thinks, jf this punishment had continued, it might have
been of great service to the Roman commonwealth, in de
terring men from tbe commission of this crime by its j.ust
severity. Afterward by a law, called the Lex Remmia?
false witnesses were burnt in the face, and stigmatized with
the letter K, denoting them to be calumniators or false ac
cusers. In opposition to whom the law calls honest men,3
homines inlegrce frontis, men without any such mark set
upon them. This law and punishment is often mentioned
by the Roman writers, Tully,* Pliny,6 and others.6 And
though the Christian law abolished it, as it did that of the
cross and some others, yet still false accusation and calumny
were corrected with suitable punishments, such as infamy,
banishment, and suffering the same evil, by the law of re
taliation, which the fals.e accuser intended to draw upon
others ; as appears from several laws in the Imperial Codes,'
and particularly those, which bind the accusing party to un
dergo the same punishment, which his false accusation
tended to bring upon the supposed criminal, if he did not
imake good his charge against him. We have already seen'
a law of Valentinian and Gratian, ordering, that whoever
impleaded another either iq regard to bis fame and reputa-

1 Gell. Noct. Attic, lib. xx. cap. 1. An putas, Favorine, si non ilia etiam
ex duodecim tabulis de testimoniis falsis poena abolevisset: et si nunc quo
que, ut antea, qui falsum testimonium djxisse convictus esset, e Saxo Tar-
peio dejiceretur, mentituros fuisse pro testimonio tam multos, qu^m vide-
mus? 2 Digest, lib. xlviii. tit. 16. ad Senatus-consultum
Turpillianum. leg. i. Calumniatoribus poena lege Remmia irrogatur.
8 Digest, lib. xxii. tit. 5. de Testibus. leg. xiii. Testimonii fides, quod in-
tegrae frontis homo dixerit, &c. * Cicero Orat. ii. pro Roscio- n.
Iv. et lvii. s Plin. Panegyric, p. 106. « Vid. Demster. Addit.
ad Rosin, lib. ix. cap. xvi. p. 1517. ' Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 39.
de Calumniatoribus. leg. i, ii, iii . lib. xvi. tit. 2. de Episc. et Cler. leg. xxi.
Cod. Justin, lib. ix. tit. 46. de Calumniatpribus. leg vii, et viii, ix. x.
* Chap. xii. sect. 15. ,

CHAP. XIII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 435
tion, or his fortune, or his life, should undergo the same
penalty he intended to bring upon the party so impeached,
if he proved a calumniator, and did not fairly make out his
action. And every accuser was tied in bonds, which the
law calls,1 vinculum inscriptions, to suffer a retaliation, or
similitude of punishment, upon failure of evincing his
charge against another. Such care was taken by the secu
lar laws to discourage delators or false informers, and pre
serve the fame and reputation of innocent men against the
vile attempts of such dangerous aggressors. Nor were the
ecclesiastical laws less severe in their way against such
transgressors. The false witness in any case was to do pe
nance five years for his crime by a canon of the Council of
Eliberis.3 And this, provided it was not in the case of death.
For in that case, being the crime of murder, the criminal
was to be debarred from communion to the very last, as has
been shewn before in speaking of murder.3 The Councils*
of Agde and Vannes impose a general penance upon such
offenders, without naming the term or duration of their pe
nance, which was left to the discretion of the bishop, who
was to judge of the sincerity of their repentance. But the
first Council of Aries5 obliges them to do penance all their
lives :6 and the second only moderates their punishment so
far as to leave it to the bishop to determine of their repent
ance and satisfaction.

1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 1. de Accusationibus et Inscriptionibus.leg.!9,
11,14,19. 2 Con. Eliber. can. lxxiv. Falsus testis prout crimen est
abstinebit; si tamen non fuerit mortis quod objecit. Et si probaverit quod
diu tacnerit, biennii tempore abstinebit. Si autem non probaverit in con-
ventu clericorum, placuit per quinquennium abstinere. 8 Chap. x.
sect. 9 and 10. * Con. Agathen. can. xxxvii. Censemus homicidas et
falsos testes a communione ecclesiastica submovendos, nisi poenitentiae sa-
tisfactione crimina admissa diluerint. Vjd. Con. Veneticum. can. i. in the
same words. And Con. Carthag. iv. can. 55. 5 Con. Arelat. i. can.
14. De his qui falso accusant fratres suos, placuit, eos usque ad exitum non
communicare, &c. a Con. Arelat. ii. can. 24. Eos qui falsa fratribus
capitula objecisseconvicti fuerint, placuit, usque ad exitum non communicare
(•sicut magna synodus ante constituit) nisi digni satisfactione poenituerint.
2 F 2

436 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Sect. 2.— Of Libelling.
Another way of injuring men's credit and reputation was,
by spreading false reports in a covert and clandestine man
ner, which the law calls libelling. This was/done, when
a man was accused by a bill of indictment, to which the
author was afraid to set his name. And such accusations
were of no force in law, but were appointed to be torn in
pieces or burnt; and no man might read, or retain, or
divulge them, without being reputed the infamous author
of them. The Christian Emperors were extremely careful
in discouraging all such base attempts upon men's credit
and reputation, as may be seen in the several laws of Con
stantine, Constantius, Valentinian and Valens, Theodosius
and Arcadius, in the Theodosian Code, under the title, de
famosis libellis. It will be sufficient to repeat one of them
made by Valentinian in this tenour:1 "the very name of
scandalous libels is infamous. Therefore whoever collects,
or reads them, and does not immediately commit them to
the flames, shall be liable to be condemned to a capital
punishment." By which it is easy to judge how infamous
the authors of such libels were, since none were allowed so
much as to read and retain them with impunity, but were in
danger of being proceeded against as the suspected authors
of them. The Ecclesiastical Law made the authors and
publishers of all such pasquils, when detected, liable to
excommunication. For so the Council of Eliberis words it
in one of her canons :2 " if any are found to have scattered
or dispersed infamous libels in the Church, let them be
anathematized." Sect. 3.— Of Detraction, Whispering, and Backbiting.
Another sort of secret defamation was that, which was

1 Cod. Th. lib. ix. tit. 34. de Famosis Libellis. leg. 7. Famosorum in-
fame est nomen libellorum. Ac si quis vel colligeiidos, vel legendos puta-
verit, ac non statim chartas igni consumpserit, sciat se capitali sententia
subjugandum. * Con. Eliber. can. 52. Si qui inventi fue
rint libellos famosos in ecclesia ponere, anathematizentur.

CHAP. XIII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 437
committed by the detraction of the lurking whisperer and
backbiter: against whose venomous tongues St. Austin is
said to have endeavoured to guard his own family and con
versation, by causing these two verses to be written upon
his table : —
Quisquis amat dictis absentum rodere vitam,
Hanc mensam indignum noverit esse sibi.
" He that takes delight in lessening the characters of the
absent, is no welcome or worthy guest at this table." This
he did, to admonish every one, that came there, to abstain
from defamatory discourse and detraction. And Possidius'
says, he was so strict and punctual in the observation of
this rule, that he would sometimes sharply reprove his most
familiar acquaintance and fellow-bishops for forgetting and
transgressing it ; telling them, that either those verses must
be erased from his table, or he must withdraw and retire to
his private apartment. This was a sort of private discipline,
like that of St. Austin's mother denying him the privilege
of sitting at her own table, whilst he was a Manicbee ; and
it was a very proper way of discouraging all evil-speaking
and detraction ; but I do not find that this crime was
brought under public discipline by any general rule of the
Churqh. And the reason might be, what St. Jerom observes,
that the sin was too general and epidemical to be publicly
corrected.2 " For there are very few that have wholly re
nounced this vice ; and it is a rare thing to find any so
careful to make their own life unblameable, not to be willing
to find fault with others. Yea, N so great a propensity is
there in men's minds towards this evil, that they, who are far
Temoved from other vices, fall into this as the last snare of
the devil."

¦Possid.Vit. Aug. cap. xxii. ° Hieron. Ep.xiv. adCelan-
' tiam. Pauciadmodum sunt, qui huic vitio renuncient; raroque invenies qui
ita vitam suam irreprehensibilem exhibere velint, ut non libenter reprehen-
dant alienam. Tantaque hujus mali libido mentes hominum invasit, ut etiam
qui procul ab aliis vitiis recesserunt, in istud tanquam in extremum diaboji
laqueum jncidant.

438 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.

Sect. 4.— Of Railing and Reviling, or scurrilous and abusive Language :
and of revealing Secrets.
But when this detraction broke out into open slander and
calumny, and especially when it was attended with con
tumelious, bitter, and reproachful words, with railing and
reviling, and scurrilous and abusive language ; then, as it
was matter of public scandal, so it became the subject of a
publie censure, for St. Paul puts railers and revilers into the
numbers of those, who are neither fit for the society of
men, nor the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. v. 11. "I have
written unto you, not to keep company, if any man, that is
called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater,
or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an
one, no not to eat." And again, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. " Be not
deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." And there
fore the Church, following this rule, reckoned slanderous
railing and scurrility among the crimes, that deserved ec
clesiastical censuTe. Insomuch that a clergyman, who
was noted for scurrilous and scoffing language, is ordered
by the Council of Agde to be degraded.1 And the same
canon occurs in the fourth Council of Carthage,2 with some
others of the like nature : as if he be given to railing,3 or
revealing of secrets to the infamy and disgrace of others.
Upon this latter case, of defaming men by divulging un
necessarily their secret crimes,* St. Austin has a whole
discourse, where he particularly says, that he, that rebukes
a man publicly before all, when his crime is known to none
but himself alone, is not a reprover, but a betrayer. He
reminds such of the example of Joseph, who, finding the

1 Con. Agathen. can. lxx. Clericum scurrilem et verbis turpibus jocula-
torem ab officio retrahendum. s Con. Carth. iv. can. 60.
8 Ibid. can. 57. Clericus maledicus, maxime in sacerdotibus, cogatur ad
postulandam veniam. Si noluerit, degradetur. It. can. 56. Clericus qui
adulationibus et proditionibus vacare deprehenditur, ab officio degradetur.
* Aug. Serm. xvi. de Verbis Domini, torn. x. p. 29. Si solus nosti quia

CHAP. XIII.] OHRISTIAN CHURCH. 439
holy virgm to fee with child, arid* suspectirig her to fee guilty
of fornication, yet' being a just and good than, was
minded to put her away privily, and riot malice her a public
example. And he adds,1 that bishops were wont thus to
proceed with private criminals' in the Cliurcn. " A bishop
knows a man to be guilty of murder, and the thing is known
to none besides himself. If ih this case I should' reprove
him publicly, some other would: take me law upon hirii.
Therefore I neither betray, riof neglect him : I reprove hirii
in secret, I set before his eyes the judgment of God, I ter
rify his guilty conscience, I persuade him to repentance." So
again, says he, " there are some men, that. are adulterer's iri
their own houses, they sin sometimes in private, arid they
are discovered to us by their own wives, sometimes in zeal
and fury, sometimes in mercy, desiring the salvafiori of their
souls. Now in this case we do not betray them openly,
but rebuke them in secret. Where the evil is committed,
there it dies : yet we do not neglect that wound, but before
all things shew the man, that has committed such a sin, arid"
wounded his conscience thereby, that his wound is mor
tal." By this discourse of St. Austin, it seems clear, that the
Church brought no private crimes under public penance,
except when the guilty person consented to it and required
it : and to do otherwise was an high crime in the minister,
who was charged, for any such attempt, as a divulger of se
crets, and betrayer of his trust, and one that brought an un
necessary defamation and scandal upon his brethren.
Sect. 61— Of Lying. How far it; brought Men under tiie Discipline of
the Church.
Thus far tHe discipline' of the Church proceeded ra^snrist
all defamatory arid perriicio lis' lying. But tHereai'bWriie1

peccavitin te, et eum vis coram omnibus arguere, non es correptor, ,sed! pro-
ditorf. ' Ibid. Novit enim nescio quem hpmicidamepiscopus?,
et alius ilium nemo no vit. Ego ilium vblo public^ compere, at fu queeri^
inscribere. Prorsus necprodo, necnegligo: corripio in , secrete ; pono ante
oculos Dei judicium, terreo cruentam conscientiam, persuadeo pcenitentiam.

440 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
other sorts of lies, as the ludicrous lie, and the officious lie,
which, though culpable and sinful in themselves, were not
sp severely pursued by ecclesiastical censures. Tertullian1
reckoning up those lesser sins, which were not publicly
punished by penance in the Church, puts lying out of
modesty, or necessity, among them. And Origen makes8
lying one of those sins, which were incident to those,
who had made the greatest proficiency in the Church.
Some indeed pleaded for officious lies, as not only innocent
and lawful, but in some cases useful and necessary: as if it
were to save the life of an innocent person, a man ought in
that case, rather to tell a lie, than to betray him to death.
But St. Austin disputes against this sort of officious lies
also, and shews them to be culpable and sinful ; arguing, that
a man ought neither to betray an innocent person, nor tell a
lie to save him, but to venture his own life, by professing
roundly, that he will neither lie for him, nor discover him.
And he gives a rare instance of this sort of fortitude in one
Firmus, bishop of Tagasta, who according to what the
Greeks call Pheronymy, ^t-pojwpia, carried firmness in his
name,3 and firmness in his resolution. For when one of
the Heathen Emperors had sent his apparitors to search
for a certain person, whom he had hidden, he told them
plainly, he could neither tell a lie, nor betray the man ;
and though they put him to the rack, and tortured him
to make him confess, yet he persisted in his resolu
tion not to discover the man that was fled to him for
safety and protection. Whereupon he was carried be
fore the Emperor himself, where he gave such admi
rable and fresh proofs of his firmness, that the Emperor
without any great difficulty was prevailed upon to pardon
the man, whom he kept in private under his protection.
This was a singular instance of heroic gallantry, rather to

1 Tertul. de Pudicit. cap. xix. • » Orig. Tract, vi. in Mat. p. 60. See
before, chap. iii. sect. xiv. 8 Aug. de Mendacio ad Consentium. cap.
13. ^ Firmus nomine, firmior voluntate— respondit quaerentibus, se nee
mentiri posse, nee hominem prodere; passusque multa tormenta corporis
permansit in sententia, &c.

CHAP. XIII.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 441
run the hazard of his own life, than tell a lie to save ano
ther from destruction. But the discipline of the Church did
not run thus high, to oblige all men to come up to this de
gree of veracity under pain of excommunication. It was
sufficient to encourage truth and ingenuity in all cases, and
punish falseness and perfidiousness in all notorious instances
of mischievous evil : but in other cases it was no blemish
to the discipline of the Church to suffer some sort of moTe
pardonable lying to pass without the animadversion of the
highest censure, so long as they gave no encouragement to
it, but condemned it universally as a lesser instance of trans
gression. To this purpose St. Austin says in another place,1
there are two sorts of lies, in which there is no great fault,
and yet they are not wholly without fault, that is, when we
lie in jest, and when we lie for the advantage of our neigh
bour. In this latter ease, he thinks, a man may honestly
conceal the truth by silence, but he must not upon any ac
count speak false, or tell a lie. For that will not consist
with the perfection of a Christian. Therefore if he would
not betray a man to death, he must prepare himself to con
ceal the truth, but not to speak false ;2 so as that he may
neither betray the man, nor tell a lie; lest he destroy his own
soul to preserve the life of another. As this shews the per
fection of the Christian morals, so it equally declares the
abatement that was made in the discipline of the Church, in
reference to such officious lies as were extorted from men
upon some extraordinary charity ; which though it did not
wholly excuse the sin, yet it made it so far tolerable, as not
to incur the severity of public discipline, but come within
the number of those lesser sins, which did not ordinarily
fall under the greater censures of the Church.
In all other cases, where lying was attended with mis-

* Aug in Psal. v. p. ii. Duo sunt omnino genera mendaciorum, in quibus
non est magna culpa : sed tamen non sunt sine culpa, cum aut jocamur, aut,
Ut proximis prosimus, mentimur. 2 Ibid. Aliud est mentiri ;
aliud, verum occultare : ut si quis forte vel ad istam visibilem mortem non
vult hominem prodere, paratus esse debet verum occultare, non falsum di
cere; ut neque prodat, neque mentiatur; ne occidat animam suam pro cor
pora alterius. Vid. Con. Tolet. viii. can. 2. et Gratian. caus.32. quaest.

442 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
chievous and pernicious effects, it was punished according
to the proportion of those crimes that accompanied it. As
we have already seen in the case of false witness, libelling,
slandering, railing and reviling. And when it implied any
fraud, or equivocation, or double dealing in matters of reli
gion it was punished as apostacy or perjury, as we have
seen in the case of the Libellatiei,1 who either denied their
religion in writing, or purchased libels of security from the
magistrate, to excuse them from sacrificing; and those, who
feigned themselves mad to avoid a prosecution: both which
sorts of men the Church condemned as idolaters, and as
guilty by their dissimulation and cowardice of betraying
their holy religion. The Priscillianists Were likewise infa
mous for this character and abominable practice of equivoca
tion. For they taught their disciples this base art of dis
sembling, and concealing their vile practices by lies and
perjury;2 giving them this direction, as one of their rules
and instructions in cases of danger : swear, and forswear,
and never discover your secrets. How much more laudable
and commendable is the rule given in this case even by the
Heathen Satyrist,3 which deserves to be written in letters of
gold ! " If ever you are called to be a witness in a doubtful
matter, though Phalaris himself should command you to
speak false, and threaten to burn you in his brazen bull,
unless you will forswear yourself; in that case reckon it the
greatest villany to prefer life before truth and honesty, and
for the sake of living to forego those things, which are the
only true reasons of living, that is, probity, integrity, and a
good conscience, for which end men are born and sent into
the world by the providence of God." This rule is often in-

1 Chap. iv. sect. 6 and 7. 3 Aug. de Haeres. cap. lxx. Propter
occultandas autem contaminationes et turpitudines suas, habent in suis
dogmatibus et haec verba, jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli.
8 Juvenal. Sat. viii; ver. 80.
Ambiguae si quando citabere testis,
Incertaeque rei, Phalaris licet imperat, ut sis
Falsus, et admoto dictet perjuria tauro ;
Summum crede nefas animam praeferre pudori,
Et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas.

CHAP. XIV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 443
culcated by the heathen moralists, Marcus Antoninus, Epic-
tetus, Seneca, and Plutarch : which made it the more rea
sonable for the Christians to insist upon it, arid punish tho
crimes of perjury and falseness with the severest of ecclesi
astical censures, whenever they could plainly convict any
one of being guilty of them : and when they could not, the
providence of God commonly interposed, and discovered
and punished them by some remarkable divine judgment.
Of which, beside the case of Ananias and Saphira in Scrip
ture, we have a memorable instance in Eusebius of three
men,1 who combined together in a false accusation of Nar
cissus, bishop of Jerusalem, imprecating upon themselves
very direful judgments, which the providence of God justly
brought upon them ; of which because I have given a full
relation before,8 I need say no more in this place.

CHAP. XIV.
Of great Transgressions against the Tenth Commandment,-
Envy, Covetousness, fyc.
Sect. 1. — Whether Envy brought Men under the Discipline of the Church.
There is but little to be observed in the ancient disci
pline of the Church concerning the transgressions against
this commandment : because, though some of them were
great crimes, yet they were such as chiefly consisted in the
internal corruptions of the mind; and the Church could take
no notice of them, till they first discovered themselves in
some outward actions. Envy was a crime of that nature:
it was always reckoned a diabolical sin, and one of the first
magnitude: but yet before it could bring a man under public
discipline, the inward rancour of the heart must betray itself
in some outward, apparent, and visible action. In this sense
1 Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 9. 2 Chap. vii. sect. 8.

444 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
we are to understand St. Chrysostom,1 when he says,the en
vious man ought to be cast out of the Church as well as the
fornicator, to preserve others from the contagion and poison
of his example. That is, when envy shews itself in any of
those mischievous effects, which naturally arise from it, and
turn to the apparent detriment of men or religion. For as
Cyprian observes,3 envy is a very prolific vice, multiplying
itself into various shapes and figures : it is the root of all
evils, the fountain of destruction, the seminary of sins, and
the matter of all offences. Hence proceeds hatred, hence
animosity arises. Envy inflames covetousness, making a
man not to be content with his own, whilst he sees another
richer than himself. Envy excites ambition, whilst a man
sees another in greater honour than himself: envy blinds
our senses, and reduces the interior faculties of the soul un
der its power and dominion. Then the fear of God is
slighted, the precepts of Christ are neglected, the day of
judgment is not thought of. It puffs us up with pride, it em
bitters us with cruelty, makes us prevaricate with perfi-
diousness, shocks us with impatience, enrages us with
discord, inflames us with anger ; and a man cannot
contain or govern himself, who is now under the power
of another. By this means the bond of divine peace
is broken, brotherly charity is violated, truth adulterated,
unity divided, and heresies and schisms take their original ;
whilst men disparage the priests, and envy the bishops, and
every one complains thathe himself wasnotordained,ortakes
it in dudgeon that another was preferred before him. When
envy was attended with any such effects as these, then it fell
under the cognizance of publie discipline ; not as it was an
inward corruption of the mind, but as it discovered itself in
some outward and vicious action, as open dissension, or he
resy, or schism, or the breach of unity and peace, ecclesiasti
cal or civil : which crimes being the subject of Church-cen
sure, so far as envy was concerned in any of them, so far it
might be said to be punished by the public discipline of the

' Chrys. Hom. xii. in Mat. p. 3S3. * Cypr. de Zelo et Livore. p. 223.

CHAP. XIV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 445
Church, but no otherwise, for want of sufficient ground to
proceed in a legal way of evidence against it. But yet this
bitter root gave but too many occasions to the Church to
punish it in other species ; being one of those sins that could
not contain itself or long lie hid, having a train of other vices
commonly attending it, according to the observation made
by Cyprian, and long before by St. James ; " for where en
vying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work."
Sect. 2. — Of Pride, Ambition, and Vain-glory.
The like is to be observed of pride, ambition, and vain
glory. These were great sins in their own nature : but be
ing internal and spiritual sins in their kind, the discipline of
the Church could take no notice of them, till they discovered
themselves in some enormous, outward vicious actions. As
when pride drew men into blasphemy against God, or op
pression of men when ambition or vain glory made men
factious and turbulent in the Church, and pushed them for
ward into open heresy or schism : then was the proper time
for the Church to take her spiritual sword into her hand, and
make use of her censures for their correction. Thus we
have seen the pride of Andronieus corrected by Synesius,
bishop of Ptolemais,1 when it brake forth into open blas
phemy against Christ: and thus all along heretics and
schismatics found their punishment, when their ambition
and restless spirit proceeded so far, as to make some open
breach upon the faith or unity of the Church. But in these
cases, pride was rather punished in other species of sin,
blasphemy, heresy or schism ; for the censure of which the
reader must look back into the former parts of this book.
Sect. 8. — Of Covetousness.
The same observation is to be carried further, and made
upon covetousness, which is another of those three great
lusts that reign in the world, the lust of the heart, the lust

1 Synes. Ep. 58. see chap. 2. sect. 6. and 8.

446 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
of the eye, and the pride of life. Covetousness, which is
the lust of the eye, is always a very great sin before God;
being, as the Apostle terms it, " idolatry, and the root of all
evil;" and even when it is only conceived in the mind, it
makes a man odious to his Maker. But because God sees
not, as man sees, for God looks upon the heart, therefore
before covetousness can render a man a proper object of the
Church's discipline, it must discover itself in some visible
act of injustice, as theft, oppression, or fraud, under which
appearances, but not otherwise, it was liable to the Church's
judgment and censure. And this is what Gregory Nyssen1
observes, that among all the species of covetousness none
were expiated by solemn penance, but such as theft and vio
lation of graves, that is, such instances of covetousness as
manifested themselves in some outward and apparent evil
action. Sect. 4. — Of Carnal Lusts.
And the like is to be said of the lust of the heart, or car
nal lasts, and sins of uncleanness. Though the evil thoughts
and intentions of the heart are sinful before God, in general;
" for if I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear
me:" and though in particular, " he that looks on a woman
to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in
his heart ;" yet this was not punishable in the discipline of
the Church: because the Church is no judge of the secret
intentions, but only of the outward and visible actions, that
carry scandal as well as sin in them. Therefore we have
observed before,3 out of the Council of Neocsesarea,3 that no
one was to be excommunicated for sins only in design and
intention. If a man purpose in his heart to commit fornica
tion with a woman, but his lust proceed not into action, it is
apparent he is delivered by grace, says the canon. And
therefore though he was culpable before God, yet the
Church inflicted not the censure of excommunication on him,

1 Nyssen. Ep. ad Letoium. * Chap. iii. sect. 17. " Con.
Neocaesar. can. iv.

CHAP. XIV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 447
because her discipline extended not to men's private
thoughts, but only to their outward actions. And this was
the case of all transgressions that were purely against this
command : they might be punished under other species of
sin, but not as they were only sins of the heart, because, as
such, human judicature could take no cognizance of them.
We have now gone through the several branches of duty
and transgression, and therein taken a full view of the ex
tent of the discipline of the Church ; whereby it appears
that the objects of ecclesiastical discipline were not only
the three great sins of idolatry-, adultery, and murder, but
all other crimes, that come under the denomination of scan
dalous and great transgressions. And thus far the disci
pline of the Church related to all persons in general, but
there were some punishments peculiar to delinquent.clergy-
men, which because they are matter of particular inquiry, I
shall make them the subject of the following book.

END OF BOOK XVI. AND OF THE SEVENTH VOLUME IN
THE ORIGINAL EDITION.

448 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.

BOOK XVII.
OF THE EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINE AMONG THE
CLERGY IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.

CHAP. I.
Of the Difference between Ecclesiastical Censures inflicted
on Clergymen and Laymen.
Sect. I. — The peculiar Notion of Communio Ecclesiastica, and Excom-
mimicatio Ecclesiastica, as applied to the Clergy.
We have hitherto taken a 'general view of the discipline
of the Church, as it respected all the members of the com
munity falling into the several crimes deserving excommu
nication. But to have a complete notion and full compre
hension of the Church's discipline, we are to consider, there
were some punishments peculiar to the clergy, and some
censures so particularly respecting their office and function,
that they could only be inflicted on them, and not upon lay
men. In regard to which, clerical communion and lay-com
munion were always considered as distinct things ; and a
man might be deprived of the former, whilst he was allowed
to enjoy the benefit and privilege of the latter; and even
that, which was many times a very great punishment in a
clergyman, or ecclesiastical person, was no punishment at
all in a secular person or layman. For there was no sus
pension from office or benefit, no degradation or deposition,
no reduction to lay-communion, that could aff'ect a layman,
as they were punishments: but all these were great punish-

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 449
ments as inflicted on the clergy, because they deprived them
of those special honours and advantageous privileges, that
were peculiar to their function. In reference to which
things we sometimes find the terms Communio ecclesiastica,
and Excommunicatio ecclesiastica, ecclesiastical commu
nion, and ecclesiastical excommunication, used in a peculiar
and restrained sense, not for communion or excommunication
in general, but for admission to, or expulsion from these par
ticular honours and advantages, which were peculiarly ap
propriated to ecclesiastical persons, or such as were of the
clerical order and function. Therefore, though some canons
take suspension from ecclesiastical communion,1 for suspen
sion of laymen from the communion of the eucharist or the
prayers of the Church ; yet other canons, speaking of the
clergy and their punishment, take ecclesiastical communion
in a more restrained sense, for communicating in the offices
of the clerical function. So that a clergyman was said to
be excommunicated, when he was deprived of the power of
exercising the offices of his function ; and such an excom
munication does not always imply, that he was wholly cast
out of all communion with the Church, but only communion
as specified with this limitation and restriction. This dis
tinction is noted by Balsamon,2 and Zonaras,3 and many
other learned men after them :* and it is necessary to be ob
served, for the right understanding of many ancient canons,5
where the words Akoiv&wjjtoc A^opur/xog, EKKtipvTTeo-Oat, which
signify excommunication, can have no other meaning, as
applied to the clergy, but only to denote their degradation
or suspension.
Sect. 2. — The Clergy usually punished by a Removal from their Office,
but not always subjected to public Penance, as Men wholly cast out of
the Communion of the Church.
This may be confirmed from an observation, that has been

1 Vid. Con. Agathen. can. 37. Con. Aurel. iv. can. 19. Aurel. v. can. 17.
'Balsam, in can. xvi. Con. Nie. . a Zonar. in eundem.
* Albaspin. Observ. lib. i. cap. 2. Habert. Archierat p. 746. Suicer. The-
saur. Eccles. voce 'A^opurpoc. * Vid. Can. Apost. 6, 43, 45,
54, 67, 58, 59, 72.
VOL. VI. 2 O

450 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
made once before in a former book,1 that some ancient
canons expressly forbid the clergy to be punished by the
ordinary way of excommunication, which implies a total re
moval from the communion of the Church ; but thought it
sufficient to punish them by a removal from their office;
and that, because it was not proper to punish men doubly
for the same offence. If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon,
says one of the Apostolical Canons,2 be taken in fornication,
perjury, or theft, he shall be deposed, but not excommuni
cated : for the Scripture says, "Thou shalt not punish twice
for the same crime." And the like rule is prescribed in the
canons of Peter,s bishop of Alexandria, and those of St.
Basil.* Sect. 3. — Yet in some special Cases both Penalties inflicted.
Yet for some more flagrant crimes both penalties were
inflicted, as appears from the same Apostolical Canons,5
which order, that if any clergyman was found guilty of
simony, or any such heinous offence, he should not only be
deposed from his office, but be cast out of the Church.
And a great many learned men are of opinion,6 that this was
the constant practice of the Church even in the three first
ages, when the Apostolical Canons were most in force. It
is certain it was so in the time of Cyprian : for he, speak
ing of Novatus, who was guilty of murder in causing his
own wife by a blow to miscarry, says, that for this crime he
was not only to be degraded, or expelled the presbytery,
but to be deprived of the communion of the Church also.'
And in the following ages there are innumerable examples
of this practice, as the learned reader may satisfy himself
by consulting the passages referred to in the margin.8
1 Book vi. chap. ii. sect. 2. s Canon. Apost. c. xxv.
a Pet Alex. can. 10. * Basil, can. 3, 32, 51. 6 Canon.
Apost. 29, 30, and 51. e Pagi Critic, in Barou. an. lxvii.
n. 15. Quesnel. Not. in. Leo. Ep. ad Rustic. Narbon. Morin. de Poenit.
lib. iv. cap. 12. Fell. Not. in Cypr. Ep. iv. ad Pompon, p. 4.
j Cypr. Ep. xlix. al. 52. ad Cornel, p. 97. Propter hoc se non de presby-
terio tantum, sed et communicatione prohibere pro certo tenebat, &c
8 Cone. Neocaisar. can. i. np£<T|8u7-£poe lav yti/ty, rng Ta£t<ag airbv furaTi-
SitaQai lav ti iropvebay, j/ jioixEvcy, l£ii>9iia(jai aiirbv riXeov, &, &yto9ai aiirbv
tic fiiravoiav. Jf a ^presbyter marries, he shall be removed from his order:

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 451

Sect. 4. — Of Suspension from their Revenues.
Now that, which we are concerned at present to inquire
after, are those punishments, which particularly affected the
clergy : and these were of three sorts ; such as respected
their maintenance, such as respected their office, and such
as respected their persons in corporal chastisement and cor
rection. Sometimes they were punished in their mainte
nance, by withdrawing the usual portion of the Church's
revenues, which was allotted to them out of the public
stock for their maintenance and subsistence. The revenues
of the Church, as has been observed in a former book,1 were
usually divided among the clergy once a month, whence it
had the name of Divisio mensurna, the monthly division:
and when there was occasion to punish a delinquent clergy
man for some less offence, it was done by withdrawing this
usual portion of the monthly division from him. As ap
pears from that of Cyprian,* who, speaking of some of the
inferior clergy that had offended, says, " They should be
withheld or suspended from their monthly division, but not
be deprived of their ministerial office in the Church."
Sect. 5. — Of Suspension from their Office.
Sometimes they were suspended, not only from their re

but if he commits fornication or adultery, he shall be wholly expelled the
Church, and reduced to the discipline of repentance. Vid. Con. Agathen.
can. 8, and42. Con. Ilerdense, can. 1, 5, 16. Con. Valentin. Hispan.
can.iii. Con. Veneticum, can. xvi. Con. Aurelian. i. can. 11. Aurelian.
iii. can. 4, 7, 8. Con. Turon. i. can 3, 5. Con. Toletan. ii. can. 3.
Con. Tolet. xi. can. y. and 6. Vigilii Decret. cap. vi. Felix iii. Ep. ad
Acacium, writes thus to him: Sacerdotali Honore, et communione catholicfi,
nee non etiam & fidelium numero segregatus, sublatum tibi nomen et munus
ministerii sacerdotalis agnosce. Vid. et Con. Asiatieum Ep. ad Joan. C.P.
inSyhodosub Menna. Act. i. ap. Crab. torn. ii. p. 36. et Con. Constant.
sub Flaviano, in Act i. Con. Chalcedon. ap. Crab. p. 780. where Eutyches
is punished both with deposition and excommunication, as all Heretics com
monly were. ' Book v. chap. iv. sect. 1. * Cypr.
Ep. xxviii. al. 34. ad Cler. Interim se a divisione mensurnft tantum conti-
neant, non quasi a ministerio ecclesiastico privati esse videantur. Vid.
Con. Carth. iv. can. 49. Justin. Novel. 123. c. 42.
2 e 2

452 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII
venues, but from their office and function. And this was
either temporary and limited, or perpetual and without re
striction. The temporary suspension was only a depriving
them of the execution of their office for a certain term ; and
when that term was over, they had liberty to resume their
place, and return to the execution of their office in all the
parts and duties of their function : but the perpetual suspen
sion was a total deprivation of them from all power and dig
nity belonging to the clerical office, and a reduction of them
to the state and condition of laymen, without any ordinary
hopes or prospect of ever recovering their ancient station.
The former of these is commonly called by the Ancients ab
stention and suspension from communion, meaning clerical
communion only; and the latter vulgarly known by the name
of degradation, de-ordination, or deposition from the office
and order of the clerical function. Thus Cyprian writing to
Rogatian, an African bishop, concerning a contumacious
deacon, who rebelled against him, bids him to depose him
from his office, or at least suspend him.1 The penalty of
suspension was for less crimes, as in the instance given in the
Council of Epone,2 if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be de
tected to keep dogs for hunting, or hawks for fowling, the
bishop is to be suspended for three months, the presbyter
for two, and the deacon for one. So by a Canon of the
Council of Lerida,3 if any clergyman in a siege bore arms,
and killed a man, though it were one of the enemies, he

1 Cypr. Ep. iii. ad Rogat. p. 6. Fungeris circa eum potestate honoris
tui, ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas. 2 Con. Epaunen.
can. iii. Episcopis, presbyteris atque diaconibus canes ad venandum, et
accipitres adaucupandum habere non liceat. Quod si quis talium persona-
rum in hSc fuerit voluntate detectus, si episcopus est, tribus mensibus se
a communione suspendat ; duobus presbyter abstineat : uno diaconus ab
omni officio et communione cessabit. " Con. Ilerden. can. i.
De his clericis, qui in obsessionis necessitate positi fuerint, id statutum est,
ut ab omni humano sanguine, etiam hostili, se abstineant. Quod si in hoc
inciderint, duobus annis tam officio quam communione corporis domini pri-
ventur— — Et ita demum officio vel communioni reddantur, eS tamen ratione,
ne ulterius ad officia potiora provehantur. See other instances of suspen
sion in Basil, can. 69. Con. Bracar. iii. can. 1. and 5. Con. Aurel. iii.
can. 2, 16, 25. Con. Aurel. v. can. 5, and 18.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 453
was to be suspended from his office two years, and be ren
dered incapable of any further promotion ; because the
canons in all cases whatsoever peremptorily forbad a clergy
man to be concerned in blood.
Sect. 6.— Of Deposition or Degradation.
The other sort of suspension, commonly called KaBdtpt-aig,
deposition or degradation, was a total and perpetual sus
pension of the power and authority committed to a clergy
man in his ordination. For as the Church had power to
'grant this authority and commission at first, so she had
power to resume and withdraw it again upon great misde-
meanors and just provocation. And then a clergyman,
whatever character he sustained before, was totally divested
both of the name and dignity, and power and authority be
longing to his former order and function. By some canons1
therefore he is said to be degraded, deprived, and turned out
of office ; by others to be totally deposed,2 IlovrEXtJe KaQaipua-
Oai ; totally to fall from his order or degree8, HavrsXwg m-o-
iriirruv fiaQfis ; to be de-ordained*, or un-ordained ; to be
Temoved out of the order of the clergy ;5 to cea,se to be of
the number of the clergy ;6 and to be reduced to lay-commu--
nion, that is, to the state and quality and condition of lay
men. All these expressions, except the last, are commonly
well understood by modern writers: but some to serve a pe
culiar hypothesis have invented very odd and strange notions
of it. Therefore to set the matter in a right light, and give
a just account of the discipline of the Church, it will not be
amiss to be a little more particular upon this point, and shew
distinctly what the Ancients meant by this part of their dis
cipline, which they call reducing a clergyman to the state
and communion of laymen, which 1 shall make the subject
of the following chapter.

1 Con. Carthag. iv. can. 48. 49. 50. Con. Tarracon. can. x.
8 Con. Antioch. can. v. a Con. Ephes. can. vi. *Acta Servatii
Tungrensis, ap. Crab. Con. torn i.p. 318. Nulla mora Euphratas deordinatur,
6 Con. Arelat. i. can. 13. Ab ordine cleri amoveatur. 6 Con Nicain.
can. ii. UmvataQa tb B\»;ps.

454 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [>OOK XVII.

CHAP. II.
Of reducing the Clergy to the State and Communion of
Laymen, as a Punishment for great Offences.
Sect. 1. — Lay-communion not the same as Communion in one Kind only.
LAY-communion in a layman was no punishment, but a
privilege, and one of the greatest privileges that belonged*
to him as a Christian: for it was entitling him to all
the benefits and advantages of Christian communion.
But in a clergyman it was one of the greatest of pu
nishments, reducing him from the highest dignity and
station in the Church to the level and standard of every or
dinary Christian. But now the question is, wherein the
nature of this punishment consisted. Bellarmin1 and some
other writers of the Romish Church, taking the word in a
new and modern sense, expound it of communion in one
kind and bring it as an argument to prove, that the primitive
Church denied the people the use of the cup in the Lord's
supper, and administered the communion to them only in
one kind, because the word lay-communion bears that sig
nification in the present Church of Rome. But this is only
begging a principle, and supposing a practice, of which
there is not the least footstep to be met with in the ancient
Church, as I have fully demonstrated in a former book.3
And it is such a piece of ignorance and misrepresentation of
the ancient discipline, as other learned men in the Romish
Church are commonly ashamed of. The notion is entirely
rejected and confuted byLindanus,3 Albaspinseus,* Peter de
Marca,5 Rigaltius,6 Durantus,7 and Cardinal Bona,8 who ta-
1 Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. iv. cap. 24. p. 678. a Book xv. chap. 5.
8 Lindan. Panoplia, lib. iv. c. 58. * Albasp. Observ. lib. i. cap. 4.
B MarcaTract. in Cap. Clericus, ad calcem Baluzii de Emendat. Gratiani.
6 Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 52. ad Anton. 7 Durant de Ritibus Eccles. lib.
ii. cap. 55. n. 6. • Bona de Rebus Liturg. lib. ii. c. 19. n. 3.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 455
citly reflects upon Bellarmin and his followers for their
childish explication of this aneient term to make it comply
with the modern practice. They no sooner hear, says he,
of the name, lay-communion, but overlooking the ancient
notion, they presently take it only in the sense, which it now
bears, and interpret it communion in oiie kind ; the falser
ness of which we may learn from hence, that we often read
of clergymen being thrust down to lay-ieommunion at that
time, when laymen communicated in both kinds.
Sect. 2. — Neither does it signify, Communicating among Laymen without
the Rails of the Chancel.
Lindanus had long before used the very same argu
ment, and advanced a more probable explication, that lay-
communion might denote a clergyman's being thrust down
to communicate among laymen without the rails of the
chancel: which has so much of plausibility in it, that the
learned Dr. Forbes,1 aud Vossius9 give in to this opinion.
But though this has something of truth in it, yet it does not
express the full meaning of lay-communion. For a man
might be admitted to lay-communion not only in the Church,
but in a private house, or upon his death-bed, where there
could be no such distinction.
Sect. 3. — But a total Degradation or Deprivation of Orders, and Reduction
to the State and Condition of Laymen.
Therefore the full import of the phrase, and the adequate
notion of reducing a clergyman to lay-communion, is totally
degrading and depriving him of his orders, that is, the
power and authority of his clerical office and function, and
reducing him to the state and quality and simple condition
of a layman. Thus Chamier rightly explains it against
Bellarmin,3 when he observes, that it was called lay-commu-

1 Forbes, Irenic. lib. ii. cap. xi. p. 221. 2 Voss. Thess. Theol.
Disp. xxxiii. Thes. v. p. 514. s Chamier. de Euchar. lib. ix. cap. iii.
n. 33. tom. iv. p. 487. Appellatam fuisse laicam communionem, non aloco.non
a speciebus, non a tempore, sed a persona nimirum quod qui ante fuerit

456 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVI.
nion neither from the place of communicating, nor from
communicating in one species, nor from the time and order
of communicating the laity after the clergy, but from the
condition and quality of the person communicating ; namely,
because he, that before was a clergyman, or in the roll and
nomenclature of the clergy, is now become a layman, and
reckoned as one in the order of laymen only. This sup
poses a power in the Church, not only of conferring clerical
orders at first to men, and promoting them from laymen to
be bishops or presbyters or deacons ; but also a power of
recalling these offices, and divesting them of all power and
authority belonging to them, by degrading clergymen upon
just reasons and reducing them to the state and quality of
laymen again. This is undoubtedly the true meaning of all
those ancient canons and writers, which speak so often of
degrading clergymen for their offences, and allowing them
only to communicate in the quality of laymen. Hereby .they
were deprived of their order and office, and power and
authority, and even the name and title of clergymen ; and
reputed and treated as private Christians, wholly divested of
all their former dignity, and clerical powrers and privileges,
and reduced entirely to the state and condition of laymen.
Of which, because I have had occasion to discourse at large
in another work,1 I shall not need to say much in this place,
but only add a few testimonies, that were then omitted. In
the third Council of Orleans there is a canon,3 which orders,
that if a clergyman, either by his own confession or convic
tion, was proved guilty of adultery, he should be deposed
from his office, and be confined to lay-communion in a
monastery all his days. And another canon appoints,* that
if any clergyman was convicted of theft or fraud, because
those were capital crimes, he should be degraded from his
order, and only be allowed lay-communion. So in the Col-
clericus, sive in clericorum nomenclatura, nunc sit laicns, et in laicorum
ordine. * Scholast. Hist, of Lay-baptism j part. ii. chap. iv.
9 Con. Aurel. iii. can. 7. Si quis adulterasse aut confessus fuerit, vel convic-
tus, depositus ab officio, communione concessa, in monasterio toto vita sus
tempore trudatur. ' Ibid. can. viii. Si quis clericus furtum aut falsita-
tem admiserit, quia capitalia etiam ipsa sunt crimina, communione concessa,

eHAP.H.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 457
lection of Martin Bracarensis1 made out of the Greek canons
for the use of the Spanish Church, it is ordered, that if any
one is surreptitiously oTdained, who, after baptism, has been
guilty of murder, either by immediate commission of the
fact, or by command, or counsel, or defence, he shall be de
posed, and only be admitted to lay-communion all his days.
Gelasius has a like decree,2 made in the case of a presbyter,
who, in a quarrel struck out the eye of another : he orders
him to be deposed from his office, and to be cloistered in a
monastery, there to repent of the fact, and only to have lay-
communion for his whole life. And Gratian cites an order
of the Council of Lerida to the same purpose,3 " that if
^clergymen, who are once corrected for their offence, shall
relapse, and return to their vomit again, they shall not only
be deprived of the dignity of their office, but continue all
their lives incapable of receiving the communion even as
laymen, which shall only be granted them at their last
hour. Sect. 4. — Clergymen thus reduced, seldom allowed to recover their
ancient Station.
The plain result of this discourse is, that reducing a
clergyman to the communion of laymen was a total depri
vation and divesting him of his office and orders. So that
if he now pretended to act as a minister, his actions were re
puted null and void, and as no other than the actions of a
layman. The learned Dr. Forbes has rightly observed this*

ab ordine degradetur. ' Martin. Bracar. Collect, Canon, c. xxvi. Si
quis homicidii aut facto, aut prsecepto, aut consilio, aut defensione post bap-
tismum conscius fuerit, et per aliquam subreptionem ad clericatum venerit,
dejiciatur, etin finem vital sus laicam communionem tantummodo reoipiat.
* Gelas. Ep. ad Ruffin. ap. Gratian, Dist. Iv. cap. 13. Bene fraternitas tua
fecit ab officio eum presbyterii removere. Hoc tamen solicitudinis tuae sit,
ut locum ei pcenitentise constituas, et in aliquo eum monasterio retrudas, lai-
ca tantummodo sibi communione concessS. s Con. Ilerden. can.
v. ap. Grat. Dist. 1. cap. 52. Si iterato velut canes ad vomitum reversi fue
rint; non solum dignitate officii careant, sed etiam sanctam communionem,
nisi in exitu, non percipiant. * Forbes, Irenic. lib. ii. cap. xi. p. 222.
Depositus depositione plena et perfecta non valide exercet ea qu» sunt
ordinis, quia ipso caret ordine, et potestate ordinis. Et jam non nisi

458 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVH.
in the ancient discipline, and I cannot better express it than
in his own words: " He, that is deposed with a plenary and
perfect deposition, cannot now validly exercise the offices,
that belong to this order, because he wants his order and
the power of his order. He is now nothing but a mere lay
man, and in so much a worse condition than other laymen,
because the restitution of such an one to his office is a much
more difficult thing than the promotion of other laymen."
Indeed there are very few instances of recalling such to
the clerical office again, which was never done but upon
some great necessity or very pressing reason ; as in the
case of Maximus, the Confessor, when he returned from the
Novatian schism, and brought over a great multitude of the-
people with him ; Cornelius, bishop of Rome, in regard to
him as a confessor, and as one, that had done good service
to the Church by the influence of his example, dispensed
with the general rule for his sake, and reeeived him to his
place in the presbytery again ;l and the Council of Nice al
lowed the same favour to the Novatians, and the African '
fathers to the Donatists, with a charitable view, to put an
end to those great and inveterate schisms. But these were
only exceptions to the common rule, and dispensations with
the general orders and standing discipline of the Church.
Sect. 5. — Notwithstanding the Pretence of the indelible Character of
Ordination.
It may perhaps be said, there was still an inherent power
and authority in such deposed clerks, and that their deposi
tion did not totally annul their ordinations: for they still
retained the indelible character of their respective orders:
and therefore they might be ministers still, and their minis
terial actions stand good and authentic, notwithstanding any
power and authority in the Church to depose and degrade
them. But as this is next to a contradiction in itself, that a
man should be deposed from his order, and yet retain his
order still, with all the spiritual power belonging to it : so
laicus est, et tanto deteriore conditioue quam alii laici, qu6d longe difficilior
sit ejus restitutio, quam aliorum laicorum promotio. ' Cornel. Ep.
xlvi. al. 49. ad Cypr. p. 93. Maximum presbyterum locum suum agnoscere
jussimus.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 459
it implies such a notion of that, which is commonly called
the indelible character of ordination, as no ancient writer
ever thought of. For the notion that the Ancients had of
the indelible character of ordination, was no more than they
had of the indelible character of baptism ; that as the out
ward form of baptism, washing or immersion in water,
though but a transient act, served for ever to distinguish a
Christian from a mere Heathen or Jew ; so as that, though
he apostatized from the Christian faith into Judaism or Gen-
tilism, he should still retain so much of the Christian cha
racter, as upon his conversion and return to the faith not to
need a second baptism : in like manner the outward form of
ifJrdination, which is imposition of hands designing a man
to any clerical office, though it be but a transient act, was
sufficient to distinguish such an one from a mere layman,
who never had any such ceremony of ordination ; so that by
this mark or character of his office once received, though
he should afterward forfeit his office and all the power and
honour belonging to it, he would always remain distin
guished in some measure from those, who never had such
an office ; and though he should be wholly divested of his
office and power, and reduced to the simple capacity and
condition of a layman, yet so much of the marks and foot
steps of his former office would remain upon him, as that if
he should be recalled again to his office, though he might
need a new commission, he would not need this outward
character or ceremony of a new ordination. There is no one
has explained or illustrated the sense of the Ancients upon
this point with more accuracy than the learned Dr. Forbes :
and therefore, for further confirmation, I shall here transcribe
his words : " There remains,1 says he, some distinguishing
1 Forbes, Irenic. lib. ii. cap. 11. p. 224. Manet quidem in deposito ali
quid distinctivum, quo ab aliis laicis distinguitur : ad distinctionem autem
non est necessaria aliqua impressa forma, sed sufficit actus transiens in pra-
teritum, nempe quod sit aliquando ordinatus. Manet in deposito non charac
ter prajsentis alicujus officii aut potestatis, sed vestigium quoddam prarteriti
honoris et aliquando habitae potestatis : per quod vestigium ab aliis laicis,
nunquam ordinatis, distinguitur: etperacta sufficienti poenitentia, si idoneus
inveniatur, et utilitas ecclesia postulet, restitui poterit absque nova ordina-
tione, &c.

460 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
character in a man that is deposed, by which he is distin
guished from other laymen: but to make this distinction, it
is not necessary there should be any form impressed, but a
transient act, that is long ago past, is sufficient, viz. that he
was once a person ordained. The character, that remains in
a deposed person, is not the character of any present office
or power, but only some footstep or mark of an honour that
is past, and of a power, that he once had ; by which foot
step he is distinguished from other laymen, who never were
ordained ; and may, after a sufficient penance performed, if
he be found fit, and the advantage of the Church so require,
be bestowed again without a new ordination." As if a
prince should imprint upon his nobles the marks and cha
racters of the offices, which they bear under him ; making
the impress or figure of a key upon the arm of his cham
berlain with an hot iron, and the image of a horse upon the
arm of the master of his horse, and the image of ajcup upon
the arm of his butler : and after this it should happen, that
the prince being justly offended at them, should depose
them from their offices, and put others in their room, sign
ing them with the characters of their offices likewise.
Those marks, which in the officers, who were not deposed,
were characters of their present power, would in those, that
were deposed, be only footsteps of their by-past power :
and whatever thing they, who were deposed should do re
lating to those offices, would have no more validity, than if
it was done by any private man, who never bore any such
office. Yet in this there would be a difference, that if the
prince pleased to restore those, whom he had deposed,
there would be no need to seta new mark upon them; but
those footsteps or remains of their ancient power would
now become again the character of their present power.
By this illustration, which justly represents the sense of
the Ancients, it is easy for any one to apprehend, bow far
the discipline of the Church in deposing clergymen ex
tended: namely, that it not only suspended them from the
execution of their office, but deprived them of their office,
and took away their orders from them ; that they were
thenceforth no more than laymen, only with this distinction

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 461
that they hadjhe external character of a by-past office,
which other laymen wanted ; that now they had neither the
office of clergymen, nor the power of it ; nor were their
actions of any other account in the Church than as the ac
tions of private men and laymen. Thus far the Church
proceeded in her censures of clergymen, that submitted to
her discipline, and were not refractory and contumacious :
she allowed them the benefit of lay-communion, which was a
moderation of their punishment in regard to their submit
ting quietly to her discipline and censures.
Sect. 6. — But sometimes excommunicated, as well as deposed, and
denied the Communion of Laymen.
But if they continued contumacious and stubborn, oppos
ing her first censures, and acting as clergymen in contempt
of them ; she then proceeded one degree further with them,
adding to their deposition a formal excommunication, and
denying them even the communion of laymen. Thus Arius,
and many other first founders of heresies, were anathema
tized and excommunicated, as well as degraded. And there
are abundance of instances of the like proceeding in
Cyprian,1 and the Apostolical Canons,2 and the Council of
Sardica,3 and the Council of Colen,* and the Council of
Eliberis,5 and the Council of Rome6 under Felix III. All
which, because I have produced at large upon another
occasion,7 1 think it needless to repeat in this place.
Sect. 7. — Sometimes removed and corrected by the Assistance and
Authority of the secular Power.
We are likewise to observe, that in case of contumacious
contempt of her censures, the Church sometimes had re
course to the secular powers ; craving their aid and assis
tance, either to remove a stubborn clerk from his station and

1 Cypr. Ep. xlix. al. 62. ad Cornel, p. 96. s Canon. Apost. 29 et
30. , s Con. Sardic. can. 1 et2. * Con. Agrippin. ap. Crab. tom.
i. p. 317. s Con. Eliber. can. 18, et76. " Con. Rom. iii. sub
Felice 3. Con. tom. iv. p. 1076. can. 2. * Scholast. Hist, of Bapt. par.
ii. chap. 5.

462 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVH.
honourable post in the Church, which he f obstinately de
tained after deposition, or else to inflict some other punish
ment upon him for his chastisement and correction. We
have seen several instances of this before in the general
account of the exercise of discipline upon all church-
members,1 related from Eusebius and the Council ofAntioch,
and the third Council of Carthage, and the African Code,
where addresses are made, or appointed to be made, to the
secular powers, some Heathen, and some Christian, implor
ing their assistance to remove some obstinate and contuma
cious bishops and presbyters from their places, when they
would not obey the decrees of the Church, but retain their
offices and preferments in spite of her censures. And of
these I need not be more particular in this place : as neither
of those other various temporal penalties, which the wis
dom of the state thought fit to inflict upon heretics in gene
ral, laymen as well as clergymen, to discountenance hete
rodoxy, and give more effectual force and vigour to the
censures of the Church : for of these I have given a suffi
cient account in discoursing of the punishments of heresy
in the former book.
Sect. 8. — What meant by the Punishment, called Curia tradi, or
delivering up to the secular Court.
But there was one particular civil punishment peculiar to
delinquent clergymen, which must be taken notice of in
this place. The ancient law comprises it under the name of
Curiae tradi, delivering up to the secular court : which, as
Gothofred observes,1 has a different meaning in the ancient
law from that, which the modern use and practice has put
upon it. For among the modern canonists it signifies de
livering a clergyman up to the secular judge after degrada
tion, to be punished for some great crime with death, or such
capital punishment as the Church had no power to inflict
upon him : but in the old law the Curia has a larger sense,
not only to denote a judge's court, but the corporation of
1 Book xvi. chap. ii. sect. 8. * Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. xvi.
tit. 2. de Episc. leg. 39.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 463
any city, the members of which were commonly called
Decuriones et Curiales. In this there were some honour
able, and some servile offices. And therefore when a cler
gyman was degraded for any offence, and reduced to the
quality of a layman ; then, besides that he lost all the pre-
vileges and exemptions, that by law and imperial favour be
longed to the clergy, he was obliged to serve the Curia, or
secular corporation of his city, and that many times only in
some mean office and servile condition, by way of additional
civil punishment for having transgressed the laws of the
Church, and the rules of his sacred profession and venera
ble function. And this was a certain way of precluding
him from all hopes ever after of regaining his clerical dig
nity again. For as the laws absolutely prohibited any of the
Curiales to be ordained at first,1 because they were tied to
certain municipal and civil offices inconsistent with the spi
ritual ; so if any of the clergy were once degraded and
taken into the power of the secular Curia, or corporation,
there was no possibility of their returning to the ecclesias
tical state again. And therefore Honorius made this a law,
that the Curia should immediately lay hold of such delin
quents, to render their punishment irreversible and perpe
tual. " If a bishop," says the law,2 " shall condemn any
clergyman as unworthy of his office, and separate him from
the ministry of the Church; or if any one voluntarily desert
his sacred profession, let the Curia immediately lay claim
to him, that he may no longer be at liberty to return to the
Church again ; and according to the quality of the man, or
the quality of his estate, let him either be taken into the
Curia, ox some collegiate company of the city, and be
obliged to undergo those public burdens or necessities,
1 See book iv. chap. iv. sect. 4. and Book v. chap. iii. sect. 15 and 16.
s Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 2. de Episcopis, leg. 39. Quemcunque clericum
indignum officio suo episcopus judicaverit, et ab ecclesise ministerio segre-
gaverit: aut si qui professum sacra; religionis sponte dereliquerit, continuo
sibi eum Curia vindicet: ut liber illi ultra ad ecclesiam recursus esse non
possit: et pro hominum qualitate, et quantitate patrimonii, vel ordini suo,
vel collegio civitatis adjungatur ; modo ut quibuscunque apti erunt publicis
necessitatibus obligentur, &c.

464 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
which he shall be found qualified for, and this without any
collusion, under the penalty of a forfeiture of a considerable
sum of gold, to be levied upon the Decemprimi, the ten
principal men of the Curia, if they connived at any such
collusion : and the offending clerk so degraded is further
tied up by a negative punishment, never to hold any office
or place under any of the secular judges." Justinian renew
ed and confirmed this law in one of his novels,1 and by
another imposed a like punishment upon any monk, that
should desert his monastery, to betake himself to any secular
employment: such an one was to serve all his life in some
mean and servile office under the judge of the province;8
and only have this fruit of his change, that for despising his
sacred ministry he should be tied to the slavish attendance
upon an earthly tribunal.
But besides this, there was another way of delivering
over delinquent clergymen to the secular courts and civil
judges ; which was, when they committed such crimes as
were properly of civil cognizance, and might be heard and
punished as crimes against the state and commonwealth.
For clergymen were considered in a double capacity, as mi
nisters of the Church, and as members of the common
wealth. Whatever crimes they committed in the first capa
city, they were indeed liable primarily to be judged by the
bishops of the Church, as the proper judges of ecclesiasti
cal causes : yet if their crimes were very flagrant, such as
heresy, or simony, though these were properly ecclesiastical
causes, yet the criminals might be turned over to the secular
judges, after the ecclesiastical sentence was past upon them :
for such crimes were punished both by Church and State,
with their respective censures. If their crimes were such,
as more nearly and directly affected the peace and tranquil
lity of the commonwealth ; such as treason, and sedition,
and murder, and robbery, and the practice of magical and
pernicious arts,; in that case, bishops not only might, but
1 Justin. Novel, cxxiii. cap. 14. * Justin. Novel, v. cap. 6. Hunc
habebit mutationis fructum, ut qui sacrum ministerium despexit, tribunalis
terreni observet servitium.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 465
were obliged, ex officio, to turn over a degraded clerk to the
secular court and a competent judge, to be punished accord
ing to the quality of his offences. There is a famous in
stance relating to this matter in the history of the Acts of
the Council of Chalcedon, reported out of the Acts of the
Council of Tyre, where Ibas, bishop of Edessa, was ac
cused for intending to promote one Abraamius, a deacon, to
a bishopric, when he had confessed himself guilty of magi
cal practices before the bishop and all the clergy : and it is
added by way of aggravation of the bishop's fault,1 that he
kept the paper of his magical enchantments by him, when
he ought to have presented the execrable criminal to the
judge of the province, according as the laws directed. By
which one instance, it is easy to apprehend, that there were
some crimes both of ecclesiastical and civil cognizance : and
when any such clergyman was deposed, in an ecclesiastical
court, the bishop was obliged to remit him to a secular
judge, to be punished with civil punishments as a layman,
according to the nature and quality of his offences. And in
this case, I conceive they treated him as an excommunicate
person, not barely reduced to lay-communion, but one de
gree lower, being thrust down to the lowest rank of noto
rious criminals, and denied the common benefit and privi
lege of those, who were allowed to partake of the commu
nion of laymen. Of which kind of censure, there are several
instances in the Apostolical Canons, and the Councils of
Eliberis, Colen, and Sardica ; which, because I have pro
duced them at large upon another occasion,2 I forbear to
relate in this place, and proceed to another inquiry, con
cerning the punishment, which was commonly called Com
munio peregrina, or reducing clergymen to the communion
of strangers.
1 Con.Chalced. Act. x. Con. tom. iv. p. 648. - * Scholast. Hist.
of Lay Baptism, par. ii. chap. v.

VOL. VI. 2 H

466 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.

CHAP. III.
Of the Punishment called Peregrina Communio, or re
ducing Clergymen to the Communion of Strangers.
Sect. 1. — The several Canons, wherein this Punishment is mentioned.
There is no one question in all the ancient discipline, that
has more exercised the pens of learned men, than this about
the punishment called Peregrina Communio, the communion
of strangers. It plainly appears, from all the Canons,
wherein any mention is made of it, that some punishment
is intended to be peculiarly inflicted on the clergy for some
special offences ; but it is not so easy to discover what sort
of punishment it was. I will first set down the Canons,
that mention it, and then the different sentiments of learned
men concerning it, pointing out that, which seems to be the
most rational account of it, with some confirmation out of
ancient history. The first Council, that mentions it, is the
Council of Riez,1 anno 439, where itis determined, in the case
of a schismatical bishop returning to the Catholic Church,
that he shall only be allowed to be a Chorepiscopus in some
country church under another bishop, or else be content
with the communion of strangers. The next Council, that
mentions it, is the Council of Agde,s anno 506, where in one
Canon it is determined, that if any clergyman be found
guilty of robbing the Church, he shall be reduced to the
communion of strangers. And in another,3 if any contu-
* Con. Rhegieu. can. iii. Liceat ei in unam parochiarum suarum ecclesiam
cedere, in qua aut chorepiscopi nomine, aut peregrinfi, utaiunt, communione
foveatur. 2 Con. Agathen. can. v. Si quis clericus furtum
ecclesia; fecerit, peregrina ei communio tribuatur. 8 Ibid.
can. ii. Contuinaces clericiab episcopis corripiantur; etsi qui priorisgra-
d&s elati superbia, communionem fortasse contempserint, aut ecclesiam fre-
quentare, vel officium suum implere neglexerint, peregrina eis communio
tribuatur, ita ut ciim eos pcenitentia correxerit, rescripti in matricuia, gradum
suum dignitatemque suscipiant.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 467
maeious clerk despises the communion, or neglects to fre
quent the church, or fulfil his office, he shall be reduced to
the communion of strangers, so as that, when he repents and
reforms, he may have his name written again in the Matri-
cula, or Roll of the Clergy, and obtain his degree and dig
nity as before among them. After this, in the Council of
Lerida, anno 539, we find a like decree,1 that in case any
clergyman upon the death of the bishop pillage his house, or
suppress any thing by fraud to the detriment of his succes
sor, he shall be reputed guilty of sacrilege, and condemned
with the greater excommunication, and at the utmost only
be allowed the communion of strangers. These are the
Canons, wherein this punishment, or moderation of punish
ment, (call it which you please,) is mentioned: but so little
light can be had from the Canons themselves, as to the na
ture of the punishment, that it is no great wonder, that
learned men have run into various opinions about it.
Sect. 2. — The Communion of Strangers not the same as Lay-Communion.
Some confound it altogether with lay-communion, as
Binius, in his Notes upon the Council of Lerida,2 and Hos-
pinian,3 and the old Gloss upon Gratian.* But it is no ways
probable, that the ancient Church would use two such dif*
ferent names for the same thing, when lay-communion was
a word so commonly known among them. Besides that,
these two things were evidently different from one another :
for clergymen, reduced to lay-communion, were totally and
perpetually degraded from their orders, and could not ordi
narily be restored to their office again, but ever after conti
nued in the state of laymen, as has been evidently demon
strated in the foregoing chapter : whereas clergymen reduc
ed to the communion of strangers, were still capable of

1 Con. Ilerden. can. xv. Si quisquam clericus quacunque occasione quid
piam probatus fuerit abstulisse, vel forsitan dolo aliquo suppressisse, reus
sacrilegii, prolixiori anathemate condemnetur, et vix quoque peregrina ei
eommunio concedatur. % Binius Not. in Con. Ilerden. can. xv .
3 Hospin. Histor. Sacramentar. lib. ii. cap. i. p. 24.
* Gloss, in Gratian. Caus. xiii. quaest. ii. cap. IL
2 h2

468 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE fBOOK XVII
being restored to their office again after the performance of
a certain penance, as is expressly said in the forementioned
Canon of the Council of Agde, can. ii.
Sect. S. — Nor Communion in one Kind.
Bellarmin1 and others not only take it for lay-communion,
but boldly assert, that that lay-communion was communion
only in one kind : so that when a clergyman is said to he
Teduced to lay-communion, it is thesamething, according to
them, as being put down to receive the communion among
laymen in one kind. But this is only multiplying of obscu
rities, and confounding a reader, by adding one error to ano
ther. For as the Ancients speak of lay-communion and the
communion of strangers as different things; so they had
no such notion of lay-communion, as these writers pretend:
for all public communion both of clergy and laity in the pri
mitive Church was in both kinds, as has been evidently de
monstrated in a former book,2 and is now ingenuously con
fessed by the most learned and accurate writers in the Rom
ish Church. So that this opinion, which confounds the com
munion of strangers with communion in one kind, is without
all shadow of truth, and has not the least foundation in anti
quity to support it.
Sect. 4. — Nor Communion at the Hour of Death.
The author of the Gloss upon Gratian has another plea
sant interpretation: for he fancies it may signify communion
at the hour of death, when a man leaves the world, and de
parts out of this life to take a pilgrimage into the next life
and world to come.3 But this is only fit to make an intelli
gent reader smile, For it is very improper to call death a
pilgrimage, which more strictly speaking, accordingto Scrip
ture language, is rather a translating of men to their native
country, their heaven and their home. Men are said to be

1 Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. iv. cap. xxiv. p. 679. s Bookxv.
chap. v. sect. 1. &c. 8 Gloss, in Grat. ubi supra. Peregrina
communio, id est, cum recedit, vel peregrinatur de hoe mundo.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 469
strangers and pilgrims upon earth, because they are absent
from heaven, the city and country, to which they belong :
therefore leaving this world, cannot be said to be entering
upon a pilgrimage, but, in propriety, rather ending and fi
nishing a pilgrimage, to go to their everlasting home. There
fore, if the Ancients spake properly, as no doubt they did,
they could not mean by the communion of strangers, the
communion of dying persons, or such as were taking apil-
grimage out of this world. Besides that the very Canon of
the Council of Agde, which the Glosser pretends to explain,
makes the communion of strangers not to be the communion
of dying persons, but such as are living, and in a capacity
to return to officiate as clergymen (after a sufficient correct
tion) in their former station.
Sect. 5. — Nor the Communion of such, as were enjoined to go on Pilgri
mage on Earth by way of Penance, a Piece of Discipline unknown to the
Ancients. Cardinal Bona mentions1 and exposes another more fanci
ful opinion of one Gabriel Henao, who, he says, wrote a long
dissertation upon this subject,3 wherein he at last concludes^
that the communion of strangers was that, which was given
to such clergymen, as were enjoined to go on pilgrimag-e,
either temporary or perpetual, by way of penance for their
offences. But he no way explains what kind of communion
this was ; and as Bona observes, he ought to have demons
strated, that when the Canons about the communion of
strangers were made, there was any such punishment as
pilgrimages, enjoined the clergy for the expiation of their
offences. For there is a profound silence in antiquity as to
what concerns any such injunction.
Sect. 6. — Nor any private and peculiar Oblation for Strangers.
Cassander3 and Vossius,* after some of the schoolmen and
Canonists, think the communion of strangers means the obr
1 Bona- de Rebus Liturg. lib. ii. cap. xix. n. 5. 2 Henao de
Sacrific. Misss. Part. iii. Disput. xxviii. n. 49. 8 Cassand.
de Communione sub utraque specie, p. 1029. * Voss. Thes,
Theol. p. 516.

470 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII
lation of the eucharist made after some peculiar rite, and on
some particular days, for the use of strangers; and that it
was put upon delinquent clergymen as a punishment to com
municate with these. But there was no such custom as this
of making any particular oblation of the eucharist for stran
gers in the ancient Church : for all travellers and strangers,
when they came to a foreign chuTch, if they brought com
municatory or commendatory letters with them, were admit
ted to communicate with the Church wherever they happen
ed to sojourn : and if they did not bring communicatory let
ters, they were denied communion till they should procure
them. Meanwhile they were allowed to communicate in
external good things, or partake of the charity of the Church,
if they were in necessity, though they were debarred from all
religious communion as suspected persons. And by
this distinction we shall be able to come at the true meaning
of the communion of strangers.

Sect. 7. — But communicating only as Strangers travelling without commenda
tory Letters, who might partake of the Church's Charity, but not of the
Communion of the Altar.
For we are to observe, that communion in the ancient
Church signifies not only partaking of the eucharist, or
communion of the altar; but also partaking of the charity of
the Church. And such travellers, as came to any foreign
church without communicatory letters, to testify their ortho
doxy and pious conversation, were presumed to be under
some censure, and not in actual communion with their own
church: till therefore they could clear themselves of this
suspicion, by the rules of the Catholic unity, and communion
of all Churches mutually with one another, they were to be
refused communion iri a foreign church, and only to be al
lowed common charity as strangers. And according to these
measures, clergymen, who were delinquents, were for some
time treated much after the same manner, and thereupon
said to be reduced to the communion of strangers : that is,
they might neither officiate as clergymen in celebrating the
eucharist, nor any other part of their office ; nor in some

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 471
cases participate in the eucharist for some time, till they
had made satisfaction ; but only be allowed a charitable
subsistence out of the revenues of the Church, without any
legal claim to a full proportion, till by a just penance they
could regain their former office and station. This is the
most probable account, that can be given of a difficult and
doubtful matter, and learned men now generally concur in the
substance of this explication ; as tbe reader, that is curiou s, may
see in the writings of Abaspinaeus1 and Bona,2 Schelstrate,8
Priorius,* Petavius,5 Dominicy,6 and Sirmond f not to men
tion the hints and strictures occasionally made about it by
Lindanus,8 Baronius,9 and Peter de Marca,10 all writers of
the Romish communion ; whom 1 the rather name upon this
account, to expose more fully the vanity of Bellarmin and
his adherents, who with a great deal of confidence, would
persuade the world, that they had discovered the lay-com
munion of their Church under one species, as they call it, in
this ancient communion of strangers, when yet they differ
as much almost as any two things from one another. Among
Protestant writers, the true notion is well expressed by Dr.
Sherlock,11 when he observes, " That the ancient discipline
was very severe in admitting strangers, who were unknown
to them, to the communion ; lest they should admit heretics,
or schismatics, or excommunicated persons : and therefore
if any such came, who could not produce their recommen
datory letters, but pretended to have lost them by the way,
they were neither admitted to communion, nor wholly re
fused, but, if occasion, were maintained by the Church, till
such letters could be procured from the Church from
whence they came, which was called the Communio Pe
regrina." 1 Albasp. Observat. lib. i. cap. 3. 3 Bona de Rebus Liturg.
lib. ii. cap. xix. n. 6. s Schelstrat. Not. in Con. Antioch. p. 397.
* Priorius de Literis Canonicis Titul. xi. p. 38.
* Petav. Not. in Synesii Epist. lxvii. p. 78. " M. Anton. Do
minicy. de Commun. Peregrin. 7 Sirmond. Hist. Pcenitentia;
cap, mt. 8 Lindan. Panoplia. lib. iv. cap. 58.
9 Baron, an. 400. p. 119. !0 Marca. Dissert, in Cap. Clericus,
ad calcem Baluzii de Emendat. Gratiani. p. 583. " Sherlock
of Church-Unity, in Defence of Stilingfleet, p. 602.

472 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.

Sect. 8.— This Notion confirmed from several Parts of ancient History.
This notion seems the more agreeable, because it comes
recommended and confirmed by several facts in ancient
history. Synesius writing to Theophilus, bishop of Alexan
dria, concerning one Alexander, bishop of Basinopolis n Bi-
thynia, who lay under some suspicion at Ptolemais, tells
him, he neither received him in the church, nor communi
cated with him at the holy table,1 but in his own house he
treated him as an innocent person. And thus, the historians
tell us,2 Chrysostom treated the Egyptian monks, who, being
prosecuted by Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, fled to
Constantinople, to have a fair hearing of their cause be
fore the emperor: he entertained them hospitably, and al
lowed them to join in the common prayers with the Church,
but would not admit them to participate at the eucharist,
whilst their cause was depending and undetermined. From
which it is evident, that strangers travelling without recom
mendatory letters might be allowed some common offices of
christian charity, but could not be admitted to christian
communion. And so it was determined expressly in the
Apostolical Canons,3 that if any strange bishops, presbyters,
or deacons, travelled without commendatory letters, they
should neither be allowed to preach, nor be received to
communion, but only have ra irpog rag xp^«C» what was
necessary to answer their present wants, that is, a charitable
subsistence. In the first Council of Carthage likewise a
rule was made,* that neither clergyman nor layman should
communicate in a strange church without the letters of their
bishop, for fear of surreptitious communion. And in every
Council almost there is a Canon to the same purpose. So
that according to the treatment of strangers, whether cler-
1 Synes. Ep. lxvi. adTheotimum leg. Theophilum. 9 Socrat.lib. vi.
cap. 9. Sozonien. lib. viii. cap. 13. s Canon. Apost. xxxiii. * Con.
Carthag. i. can. 7. Clericus vel laicus non communicet in aliena plebe
sine Uteris episcopi sui. Nisi hoc observatum fuerit, communio fiet passiva.
Vid. Con. Antioch. can. vii. Laodicen. can. xii. Milevitan. can. XX. Aga-
then. can. Iii. Epauncn. can. vi.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 473
gymen or laymen, in a strange church ; such was the disci
pline exercised upon delinquent clergymen in their own
Church : they were suspended from their office and commu
nion, but allowed a necessary subsistence, which was pro
perly the Communio Peregrina, or reducing them to the
communion of strangers.
Sect. 9. — What Sort of Penance was necessary to restore such delinquent
Clergymen to their Office and Station again.
There remains but one difficulty now to be accounted for
in this matter ; which is, what sort of penance that was,
which the Church required of such delinquent clergymen, in
order to restore them to their office and station again. That
they might be restored by penance, is evident from the fore-
mentioned Canon of the Council of Agde,1 which allows it ;
and in this the communion of strangers chiefly differed from
the communion of laymen, that the one allowed a delinquent
clergyman to be restored to his office, and the other ordina
rily did not: but then there arises a difficulty from other
canons, which both forbid, any one to be ordained,2 who
had done public penance, whilst he was a layman ; and
also prohibit clergymen, who were reduced to pub
lic penance, ever to recover their ancient dignity
and station again.3 Concerning both which points of dis
cipline, besides the Canons, St. Austin is an irrefragable
witness in reference to practice : for he testifies,* that this
was the order of the Church, that no one, who had done pe
nance for any crime, should he admitted to any clerical de
gree, or return to it after correction, or continue in it: which
was done, not to make any one despair of pardon, but only
to comply with the strict discipline of the Church. How then
can it be said, that the communion of strangers allowed
1 Con. Agathen. can. ii. s Con. Nie. can. x. Carthag. iv. can.
56, et68. Tolet. i.e. 2. Agathen. c. xliii. Epaun. c. iv.
8 Con. Carth. v. c. 11. Leo Ep. xc. ad Rustic, c. ii. ? Aug.
Ep. 1. adBonifac. p. 87. Ut constitueretur in ecclesia, ne quisquam post
alicujus criminis poenitentiam clericatum aecipiat, vel ad clericatum redeat
vel in Clericatu maneat, non desperatione indulgentise, sed rigore factum est
discipline.

474 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII,
clergymen to recover their office and dignity by doing pe
nance, when these canons for doing penance so plainly took
it from them 1 To this it is easily answered by distinguish
ing between public and private penance : the Canons, which
forbid clergymen to be restored to their office after having
done penance, speak of public penance done solemnly in
the church; but the other Canons, which allow them to be
restored, speak of private penance only. And that this is
no arbitrary distinction, but of the Church's own making, is
evident from the Canons themselves. For the Council of
Girone allows such as have done private penance in time of
sickness,1 and received absolution upon it, afterwards to be
ordained, provided they never were brought to do public
penance in the church, arid there was no other objection of
immorality to be made against them. In like manner, Genna-
dius recounting the several things, that hindered a man from
being ordained, reckons his having done public penance a
sufficient objection against him .-but as for private penance,
he takes no notice of it.3 Therefore, by this rule, we are to
interpret all the Canons, which forbid penitents to be or
dained at first, or deny clergymen after penance the li
berty of regaining their ancient station : they are to be un
derstood of public penance, and not of private. And so this
seeming difficulty and contradiction of the canons is easily
adjusted, whilst the Council of Agde, which allows clergy
men, reduced to the communion of strangers, liberty of re
suming their office again after penance, must necessarily be
interpreted of private penance, and not of public. And this
makes it evident, that this reducing of clergymen to the
communion of strangers was only a temporary suspension of
them from their office, and not a total degradation, or reduc
tion of them to the state and quality of laymen.
1 Con. Gerunden. c. x. Qui regritudinis languore depressus, poenitentiffl
benedictionem (quam viaticum deputamus) per communionem acceperit, et
postmodum reconvalescens caput pcenitentia? in ecclesia publice non subdide-
rit; si prohibitis vitiis non detinetur obnoxius, admittatur ad cleruin.
2 Gennad. de Eccles. Dogm. cap. lxxii. Clericum non ordinandum, qui pub
lics poenitentia mortalia crimina deflet. Vid. Con. Tolet. i. can. 2. Pceni-
tentem dicimus, qui publicain poenitentiam gerens, sub cilicio, divino fuerit
reconciliatus altario.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 475

CHAP. IV.
Of some other special and peculiar Ways of inflicting Pu
nishment on the Clergy.
Sect. 1. — Sometimes the Clergy perpetually suspended from their Office,
yet allowed to retain their Title and Dignity.
Besides these more general and usual ways of punish
ing the offending clergy, there were also some less noted
and uncommon ways of censuring them, which it will not
be amiss to observe, whilst we are upon this subject. Among
these we may reckon that sort of suspension, which deprived
them entirely of the exercise of their office, and yet allowed
them to retain their title and dignity. This was a sort of
middle way between a temporary suspension and a perpe
tual degradation : for they were still allowed to communi
cate among the clergy, and not entirely reduced to the
communion of laymen. Thus in the Council of Ancyra,1
those presbyters, who had sacrificed to idols, but afterwards
returned, and became confessors, were allowed to keep
their dignity and title of presbyters, and sit among the rest
in the presbytery ; but not to preach, or offer the eucharist,
or perform any other office of the sacred function. The
same is decreed concerning deacons lapsing into idolatry,2
that they might retain their honour, but cease from all ad
ministration of the sacred office, neither distribute the bread
nor the cup, nor minister as the common Prcecones, or criers
of the Church, unless the bishop in consideration of their
great pains, humility, or meekness, thought fit to allow them
more or less of their office, which was left entirely to his dis
cretion. The Council of Nice made a like decree,3 con
cerning the Novatian bishops, whom they degraded to the

1 Con. Ancyr.can.i. 2 Ibid. can. ii. 3 Con. Nie.
can. viii.

476 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
order! of presbyters, but yet permitted them to retain the
title of bishops, if the bishop of the place thought fit to
allow it. And the same was determined in the case of
Miletius by the same synod,1 that he might retain the bare
name and honour of a bishop, but never after officiate in
his own church, or any other. So, in the Canons of St.
Basil,2 a delinquent presbyter is allowed to sit among the
rest, but obliged to abstain from all offices belonging to his
order. And an offending deacon is suspended from his mi
nistry,3 but yet allowed to partake of the holy elements
among the other deacons. The Council of Agde has a
like decree about presbyters and deacons,* who were diga
mists, or had married tbe relict of some other man ; that
though some former rules of the Fathers had ordered them
to be more severely handled, yet such respect and tender
ness should be shewn to those, who were already ordained,
that they might retain the name of presbyters and deacons:
but the presbyters should neither presume to consecrate,
nor the deacons to minister in the Church. A like determi
nation was made by the general Council of Ephesus,6 in the
case of one Eustathius, metropolitan of Pamphylia, who for
the love of a private life, and some troubles, that he met
with in his office, voluntarily relinquished and deserted his
bishopric against canon, but afterward petitioned the Coun
cil, that he might enjoy the name and honour of a bishop
still : in which request the Council gratified him, out of
regard to his age and quiet temper; allowing him to have
both the name, and honour, and communion of a bishop,
but with this condition, that he should neither ordain, nor
take any church to officiate in as a priest by his own autho
rity, unless he was admitted as a co-adjutor, or expressly
allowed by the bishop of the place.
1 Con. Nie. Epist. Synod, ap. Theod. lib. i. cap. 9. Socrat. lib.i. cap. 9.
Sozomen. lib. i. c. 24. * Basil, can. 27. 8 Ibid.
can. 70. * Con. Agathen. can. i. Placuit de digamis, aut
internuptarum maritis, quanquam aliud Patrum statuta decreverint, ut qui
hujusque ordinati sunt, habita miseratione, presbyteri vel diaconi nomen
tantum obtineant: officium vero consecrandi presbyteri, et ministrandi hujus'
modi diacones non prnesumant. * Con. Ephes. Ep. Synod,.
ad. Synodum. Pamphyl. Con. torn. iii. p. 808.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 477

Sect. 2. — Sometimes degraded, not totally, but partially, from one Order
to another.
It appears from one of the forementioned canons,1 that
there was such a punishment also as a partial degrada
tion ; which Was when the clergy where not totally deprived
of all clerical degree and office, but only thrust down from
an higher order to a lower, by way of discipline and cor
rection. Thus the Council of Nice treated the Novatian
schismatics, admitting those, who had passed for bishops
among them, to officiate only as presbyters in the Catholic
Church, unless any bishops would promote them to the
office of a Chorepiscopus under their jurisdiction. And so
the Council of Neocaesarea orders deacons,2 that sin, to be
thrust down and degraded to the order of subdeacons. And
by this rule it was, as Valesius observes,3 out of St. Jerom's
Chronicon, that Cyril of Jerusalem degraded Heraclius from
the order of a bishop to that of presbyter. But the Council
of Chalcedon seems not to have approved of this rule : for
in one of her canons it is said to be sacrilege, to bring
down a bishop to the degree of a presbyter :* and that there
fore if there be any just cause to remove a bishop from the
exercise of his episcopal function, he ought not to hold
the place of a presbyter neither. By which we may con
clude, that this point of discipline varied, according to the
different apprehensions and sentiments of men in different
ages. Sect. 3. — Sometimes deprived of a Part of their Office, but allowed to
exercise the Rest.
Sometimes again they were deprived of their office, as
to some particular act of it, but allowed to exercise the rest.
Thus the Council of Neocaesarea orders, that if any pres
byter confessed, that he had beeh guilty of any corporal

1 Con. Nie. can. viii. B Con. Neocssar.can. x. Vid. Con.
Tolet. i. c. 4. Con. Trull, c. 20. 3 Vales. Not. in Sozomen.
lib. iv. c. 30. * Con. Chalced. can. xxix.

478 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
uncleanness before his ordination, be should not, consecrate
the eucharist,1 but might continue in the exercise of all
other parts of his office, if he was a man diligent m his
function. And in tbe fourth Council of Carthage it was
decreed, that if a bishop ordained any one wittingly,2 who
had done public penance, the ordination of which was pro
hibited by the canons, he should for his transgression be de
prived of his episcopal power, as to what concerned the
particular act of ordaining only : which implies, thathe was
still allowed to exercise all other parts of his office and
function. Sect. 4.— Sometimes deprived of their Power over a Part of their
Flock, but allowed it over the Rest.
In Afric we sometimes find bishops for their mal-admi
nistration and indiscreet government deprived of their power
over some part of their flock, and yet allowed still to go'
vern the rest. This may be collected from St. Austin's ac
count of their proceeding with one Antonius, a young bishop,
who had oppressed some of his people at Fussala, by unrea
sonable exactions ; for which it was thought fit to punish
him with this gentle correction, that he should , no longer
rule over that part of his people,3 whom he had so oppressed,
lest their grief and impatience should break out into some
violent attempts, that might be dangerous to both parties.
Antonius indeed complained of this as an infringement of
his just rights and powers : for he pleaded, that a bishop
ought either to be deposed, or to be left in the full exercise
of his jurisdiction and power. But St. Austin shews, that
this was no new thing in Afric, nor unreasonable in itself:
for a bishop may be guilty of many misdemeanours, for
which it will neither be proper to let him go wholly unpu-

1 Con. Neocffisar. can. ix. M/} irpoatyEpsTU), jikviav iv roig Xonroig tia ttjv
aXXqv oirsSriv. s Con. Carthag. iv. can. 68. Si sciens epis
copus ordinaverit talem, etiam ipse ab episcopatQs sui, ordinandi duntaxat,
potestate privetur. Vid. Con. Taurin. c. ii. 3 Aug. Ep. 261.
Honorem integrum servavimus juveni corrigendo, sed corripiendo minuimus
potestatem, ne scilicet eis prsesset ulterius, Cum quibus sic egerat, &c.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 479
nished, nor yet to use such severity as to deprive him uni
versally of his episcopal honour and power. In such cases
the middle way proves the most useful correction ; neither
to use too great severity above the nature of the offence,
nor too much lenity and mildness, to let it pass entirely with
out any censure or correction. And he shews, that this was
a method often taken in Afric for less faults in other instances
of punishment.
Sect. 5. — Bishops in Afric punished by depriving them of their Seniority
and Right of succeeding to the Primacy or Metropolitical Power.
Particularly in Afric, (where the primacy of metropolitans
always went by seniority of ordination, so that the oldest
bishop always regularly succeeded to the primacy of course,
whatever diocese he was possessed of,) it was customary to
punish an offending bishop, with the loss of his seniority
and right to the primacy, by rendering him incapable of
ever attaining it. This we learn from St. Austin in the same
Epistle,1 where he gives an instance in one Priscus, of the
province pf Mauritania Caisariensis, who was thus censured :
and if Antonius's argument had been good, Priscus might
have pleaded the same, that he ought either to have been
allowed his Tight of succeeding to the primacy, or to have
been deprived of his bishopric : but the African discipline
took the middle way, for certain crimes, neither to deprive
bishops of their episcopal power, nor to let them go wholly
unpunished. Sect. 6. — Also by confining them to the Communion of their own
Church.
Another instance of this discipline was to confine an
offending bisbop to the communion of his own Church, and
prohibit all other bishops from admitting him to communion
in any of their Churches. St. Austin mentions one Victor,2

i ' Aug. Ep. 261. Clamet Priscus provincial Caesariensis episcopus: "Aut
I ad primatum locus sicut caeteris et mihi patere debuit, aut episcopatus mihi
\ remanere non debuit." s Aug. ibid. Clamet alius ejusdem pro-
l vinciae Victor episcopus, cui relicto in eSdem poena in qua et Priscus fuit,

480 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
who was thus censured ; and he might have pleaded after
the same manner : either I ought to communicate in all
Churches, or not communicate in my own. But this was
thought a reasonable way of discountenancing an offending
bishop for some smaller faults, when they did not think them
worthy of the highest censure : as in case a bishop neglected
to come to the provincial synod at the primate's call, or or
dained another man's clerk without his license or approba-
bation ; which are some of the offences specified in the Afri
can synods,1 for which a bishop might incur this censure.
Sect. 7. — Or removing them from a greater Diocese to a less.
St. Austin gives a third instance of this discipline in the
African Church : which was the removing of a negligent
bishop from a greater diocese to a less ; which was a kind
of tacit reproach and dishonour to him, and the disgrace was
his punishment. For as it was an honour for a bishop to be
translated from a less diocese to a greater by the approba
tion and judgment of a venerable synod, without which they
might not move : so it was a dishonour and reproach to him
to be thrust down by a synodical decree, though not to a
lower order, yet to a lower station. The one was an argu
ment of merit and great worth, and the other an argument
of some demerit and misdemeanor; and therefore the one
was used by way of reward, to promote a bishop for his
abilities and good service; and the other by way of punish
ment, to give a negligent bishop a little gentle admonition
and moderate correction. And thus St. Austin tells us, one
Laurentius, a bishop, was punished by the discipline of the
African Church.2

nusquam nisi in dioecesi ejssab alio communicatur episcopo : clamet, inquam,
aut ubique communicare debui, aut etiam in meis locis communicare non
debui. ' Vid. Con. Carthag. v. can. 10, 13. et Cod.
Afric. can. 77, et 81. * Aug. ibid. Ep. 261.

CHAP. 1V.1 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 481

Sect. 8. — The Clergy in general punished by Loss of their Seniority
among those of the same Order.
It was a moderate punishment, much of the same nature,
which the Council of Trullo mentions as common to all
orders of the clergy in general i1 which was to deprive them
of their seniority, and sink them down to the lowest seat
or degree among those of the same order. This was com
monly the punishment of persons of. an ambitious and as
suming temper. The Council instances in such deacons, as,
because they had some more honourable ecclesiastical office,
would presume to take place of the presbyters, and sit be
fore them; against whom they allege the parable of our
Saviour, " When thou art bidden to a wedding, sit not down
in the most honourable place, &e. for he, that exalteth him
self, shall be abased; and he, that humbleth himself, shall
be exalted." The author of the Apostolical Constitutions
takes notice of the same punishment, as used in his time,
even among the laity also. For if an honourable person
came into the assembly, being a stranger, and any one re
fused upon the deacon's admonition to give him place to sit
down ; he that so refused was to be removed by compulsion2
beneath the lowest rank of hearers in the Church. Cotele-
rius notes the same order as observed among the monks in
the rules of Pachomius and St. Benedict for smaller of
fences. And in the second Council of Nice, alike rule was
made for the correction of the clergy,3 that if any one
through haughtiness insulted another, he should for his
offence be thrust down to the lowest degree of his own
order, to teach him humility and submission in his station.
Sect. 9. — And rendering them incapable of being promoted to any
higher Order.
They had also a negative punishment of the same nature
for all the inferior orders of the clergy, which was, to deny
1 Con. Trull, can. vii. * Constit. lib. ii. cap. 58. * Con.
Nie. ii. can. 5.
VOL. VI. 2 I

482 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVH.
them all further promotion, and incapacitate them from at
taining to any higher order in the Church. The first Coun
cil of Toledo has several canons to this purpose. The
first canon orders,1 that deacons, who lived incontinently with
their wives, should never arrive to the honour of presbytery,
nor presbyters to episcopacy. This was one of the first
steps made towards settling the celibacy of the clergy,
which at first was introduced, not by disannulling the orders
of the married clergy, but by debarring them from being
advanced to any higher order. Another canon appoints,2
that if a reader marries a widow, he shall never be promoted
to any higher degree, but always continue a reader, or at
most a sub-deacon. And a third canon of the same Coun
cil decrees,3 that if any one after baptism had followed the
soldier's life, though he had never happened to shed blood,
if he were ordained to any of the inferior orders, he should
never arrive to the dignity of a deacon in the Church. A
like decree was made in the Council of Lerida, that if any
clergyman, who ministered at the altar, shed human blood,
though it were the blood of an enemy in the straightness
of a siege, he should not only be suspended from his office
and communion for two years, but, after he was restored to
his office and communion again,* should remain incapable
of being advanced to any higher office in the Church. And
there is another canon in the same Council, which orders
such clergymen as fall by the frailty of the flesh, after pe
nance, to be reeeived again ; yet so as not to expect any
further promotion in the Church.* The first Council of
1 Con. Tolet. i. c. 1. Placuit ut diacones, qui incontinenter cum uxoribus
vixerint, presbyterii honore non cumulentur. Si quis vero ex presbyteris
ante interdictum filios suos susceperit, de presbyterio ad episcopatum non
admittatur. s Ibid. can. iii. Lector, si viduam alterius uxorem
acceperit, amplius nihil sit, sed semper lector habeatur, aut forte sub-diaco-
nus. 8 Ibid. can. viii. Si quis post baptismum militaverit, et chalmy-
dem sumpserit, aut cingulum ad necandos fideles, etiamsi gravia non admise-
rit, si ad clerum admissus fuerit, diaconii non aecipiat dignitatem.
* Con. Ilerden. can. i. Ita demum officio vel communioni reddantur, ea
tamen ratione, ne ulterius ad officiapotiora provehantur. 6 Ibid. can.
v. Ita tamen, ut sic offictprum suorum loca recipiant, ne possint ad altiora
oflicia ulterius promoveri.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 483
Orange, and the Council of Turin1 have canons to the same
purpose: and Pope Leo delivers it as a rule, founded upon
the general practice of the Church, in the case of heretical
clergymen returning to the unity of the faith, that they
were to take it as a favour, if 'they were allowed to continue
in the order they were in before, deprived of all hopes of
further advancement.2 Among the Greeks St. Basil has a
like rule concerning readers,3 who were guilty of anti-nup
tial fornication, that every such delinquent sfiould be sus
pended a year from his office, pevwv aTrpoKOirog, remaining
moreover for ever incapable of attaining to any higher sta
tion or preferment in the Church. And Justinian, in one of
his Novels made a parallel decree concerning readers,* that
if any of them married a second wife, or a widow, or one
divorced from a former husband, or otherwise forbidden by
the laws or sacred canons ; that he should never be advan
ced to any other ecclesiastical order: or if by any means he
happened to be unwarily so advanced, he should be put
down again, and reduced to his former order. This was one
of those negative punishments, which may be proper to
discourage and correct offences of a lesser kind ; and so
far as it was serviceable to that end, it may be reckoned an
useful part of the discipline of the Church.

Sect. 10. — The Clergy sometimes punished by denying them the public Ex
ercise of their Office, whilst they were allowed to officiate in private.
St. Basil mentions another piece of discipline,5 which
was pretty peculiar ; for I remember no other writer at pre
sent that mentions it beside himself: that was to deny an

1 Con. Arausican. i. can. 24. Taurinen. can. vii. a Leo. Ep. iii.
ad Julianum. al. Januariuin. Circa quos etiam eam canonum constitutionem
pracipimus custodiri, ut in maguo habeant beneficio, si adempta sibi omni
spe promotionis, in quo inveniuntur ordine, stabilitate perpetua maneant, si
tamen iteratS. tinctione non fuerint maculati. s Basil, can. lxix.
* Justin. Novel. 123. cap. xiv. Si lector secundam ducat uxorem, aut
primam quidem viduam, aut separatam avijo, aut legibus vel sacris canoni-
bus interdictam, nequaquam ad aii urn ecclesiasticum ordinem provehatur :
sedetsi ad majorem ordinem perducatur, expellatur ed, et priori restituatur.
'Basil, can. xviii
2 12

484 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
offending clergyman the liberty of exercising his office in
public, whilst he was allowed to officiate in private. This
was a rule made by St. Basil in the case of Bianor and some
other presbyters of Antioch in Pisidia, who upon some
injury done them, had rashly sworn they would never exe
cute the office of presbyters any more : Jaut afterward re
penting of their Tash oath, were willing to be admitted to
the exercise of their office again. St. Basil being consulted
in the case, determined, that they ought to be restrained
from the public exercise of their function, because of the
scandal and offence, that might be given to many thereby ;
but still they might be allowed to officiate in private, where
no such offence could be taken. These are the specialities
of those punishments, which the discipline of the Church
commonly inflicted on clergymen for lesser offences; which
I have the rather mentioned, because they are seldom to be
met with in the accounts of Church discipline, given by mo
dern writers.

Sect. 11. — Of Intrusion of Offenders into a Monastery to do Penance
in private.
To all these we may add, that in the fourth and fifth
ages, when monasteries began to be settled in the world,
nothing was more common than to confine an offending
clerk to some monastery, either for a certain term, or during
his whole life, as the nature of his temporary suspension or
his perpetual deprivation required : there to exercise himself
in acts of private repentance for his offences. This was a
convenience rather than a punishment, giving them an op
portunity of qualifying themselves the better either for a re
storation to their office, or for their reception into lay-com
munion : and therefore it was indifferently used both in cases
of deprivation and suspension. Many, who were only sus
pended from the exercise of their office for a certain time,
were yet confined to a monastery during that term; as ap
pears from one of Justinian's Novels, where it is ordered, that
if a presbyter or a deacon was convicted of giving false evi
dence in a pecuniary cause, they should be suspended from

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 485
their ministry for three years, and be confined to a monas
tery during the time of their suspension.1 And this was in
lieu of scourging, which was inflicted for this crime upon
other offenders. The second Council of Sevile decrees the
same in the case of a clergyman, who deserts his own
church without his bishop's leave, and makes his residence
in any other:2 he is to lose the badge of his honour and or
dination for some time, and be bound to a monastery, till it
be proper to recall him to the ministry of his ecclesiastical
order again. But in case the punishment amounted to a
total and perpetual deprivation, then they were frequently
sent to a monastery for their whole lives, and there they
spent the remainder of their days only in lay-communion.
Of which the canons of Agde and Epone are full proof,3 to
which I refer the learned reader in the margin.
Sect. 12. — Of corporal Punishment. How far used as apiece of Disci
pline upon the inferior Clergy.
We may observe further, that in the same ages, when it
was the custom to shut delinquents up in a monastery, some
corporal punishment and confinement in prison also was
used, as a piece of Church discipline, to correct the inferior
orders. I have had occasion to show before,* that the larger
churches had commonly their Decanica or prisons, for this
purpose ; which were not any one distinct building, but
some of the Catechumenia, or Diaconica, or Secretaria, be
longing to the church, and made use of for this end, to put
offending clerks to a more decent confinement in them. It

1 Justin. Novel. 123. cap.xx. Sufficiat pro verberibus tribus annis separ
rari a sacro ministerio, et monasteriis tradi. 2 Con. Hispar
len. can. iii. Desertorem clericum, cingulo honoris atque ordinationis sua^
exulum, aliquo tempore monasterio relegari, al. religari convenit : sicque
postea in ministerio ecclesiastici ordinis revocari. s Con.
Agathen. can. 1. Si episcopus, presbyter, vel diaconus capitaie crimen
commiserit, aut chartam falsaverit, aut testimonium falsum dixerit, ab officii
honore depositus, in monasterium retrudatur : et ibi, quamdiu vixerit, laicam
tantummodo communionem aecipiat. Con. Epaunen. can xxii. Si diaconus
aut presbyter crimen capitaie commiserit, ab officii honore depositus, in
monasterium retrudatur, ibi tantummodo quamdiu vixerit communionem su^
mendo. 4 Book viii. chap. vii. sec .9.

486 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
has also been noted in another place,1 that all monasteries
had the discipline of the whip or scourge among them, to
punish the junior monks and unruly offenders. And it is
as certain it was also used for the correction of the inferior
orders among the clergy. The Council of Agde mentions
it twice ;2 first as the punishment of those, who wandered
about from one Church to another, without the recommen
datory letters of their bishop : whom the canon orders first to
be corrected by words, and then by stripes, if they remained
incorrigible upon admonition. Another Canon appoints the
same discipline for drunkenness:3 a clerk, who is convicted
of being drunken, is either to be suspended thirty days from
communion, or else to be chastised by corporal punishment.
The Council of Epone expressly distinguishes between the
superior and inferior clergy in the case :* if one of the supe
rior clergy feast with an heretic, he is to be suspended for
a year; but one of the inferior for the same crime is to be
beaten. The first Council of Mascon orders,8 that if a
clergyman be found wearing an indecent habit, or carrying
arms, he shall be imprisoned thirty days, and fed only with
bread and water. This imprisonment was the punishment
of the superior clergy : for in another Canon the distinction
is expressly made in the case of one clergyman accusing
another before a secular magistrate :6 if he was one of the
superior clergy, he was to be imprisoned thirty days ; if one
of the inferior, to receive forty stripes, save one. And this
was done in conformity to the rule in the law of Moses,

1 Book vii. chap. iii. sect. 12. s Con. Agathen. can. xxxviii.
Clericis, sine commendatitiis epistolis episcopi sui, licentia non pateat eva-
gandi. — Quos si verborum increpatio non emendaverit, etiam verberibus
statuimus coerceri. 8 Ibid. can. xii. Clericum quem ebrium
fuisse constiterit, aut triginta dierum spatio communione statuimus sub-
movendum, aut corporali subdendum supplicio. * Con. Epau
nen. can. xv. Si superioris loci clericus heretici cujuscunque convivio inter-
fuerit, anni spatio pacem ecclesiae non habebit; quod si minores clerici
praesumpserint, vapulabunt. 6 Con. Matiscon. i. can. 3.
Clericus, si cum indecenti veste aut cum armis inventus fuerit, a seniore
ita coerceatur, ut triginta dierum inclusione detentus aqua tantum et modioo
pane diebus singulis sustentetur. 6 Ibid. can. v. Si junior
fuerit, uno minus de quadraginta ictus aecipiat ; si certe honoratior, triginta
dierum inclusione mulctetur.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 487
that they should not exceed forty stripes ; only in case the
crime was great, they might repeat them after some days ;
which is observed out of the Life of Caesarius Arelatensis by
the late French author of the Historia Flagellantium,1 who
cites many other writers, which need not here be' mentioned.
I only add that of St. Austin,2 who says, " this way of coer
cion was used in bishop's courts in his time ;" but whether he
means towards the clergy, or the laity, is not absolutely
certain. It might be towards both perhaps in lesser cri
minal causes, that were of an ecclesiastical nature : for as to
those criminal causes, which were of a civil nature, bishops
had no power, especially in cases of blood ; in which sort
of judgments a bishop could not be concerned, without in
curring himself the highest censures of the Church : but
they might have bberty to chastise the inferior clergy with
corporal correction. The law indeed in many cases ex
empted the superior clergy from corporal punishment : as
if a presbyter or a deacon gave false testimony in a pecu
niary cause, they might be suspended, and sent to a monas
tery for a time, but not be corporally punished as other
men. Iu criminal causes it was otherwise : false testimony
in such a case deprived them of their orders, and reduced
them to the state of laymen ; and then, as other laymen,
they were liable to corporal punishment, according as the
laws required. But whether it were a pecuniary cause, or a
criminal cause, if one of the inferior orders gave false testi
mony, in either case he was liable to suffer corporal punish
ment : and in this consisted the difference between the su
perior and inferior clergy in this part of discipline, as is
noted in one of Justinian's Novels,3 which helps to explain
the practice of the Church. And this is what I had to ob
serve concerning those punishments, which by the rules of
the ancient discipline were peculiarly inflicted on the clergy
for the correction of their offences.

1 Historia Flagellantium. cap. v, et vi. Paris. 1700. 8vo. * Aug.
Ep. 159. ad Marcellin. Qui modus coercitionis, per virgarum verbera, saepe
etiam injudiciis solet ab episcopis adhiberi. 8 Justin Novel.
23. cap. xx.

488 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.

CHAP. V.
A particular Account of the Crimes for which Clergymen
were liable to be punished with any of the forementioned
Kinds of Censure.
Sect. 1.— All Crimes, that were punished with Excommunication in a Lay
man, punished with Suspension or Deposition in the Clergy.
It remains that we now give a particular account of those
crimes, for which clergymen might be punished. And here
we must observe, that their crimes were of two sorts, such
as were common to them with laymen, and such as they
might be guilty of in transgressing the rules particularly
relating to their office and function. Of the former sort, I
need not discourse particularly here, because I have done it
largely in the last Book, where I examined the nature of the
several great crimes, for which a layman might incur the
censure of excommunication : there being only this general
difference to be observed between the crimes of a laic and an
ecclesiastic, that what was commonly punished with excom
munication in a layman, was ordinarily punished with sus
pension or deposition in a clergyman ; or, if the crime was
very scandalous and flagrant, witb excommunication also. For
this reason I here pass over the great crimes of idolatry,
divination, magic, sorcery, and enchantment, apostacy, he
resy, schism, sacrilege, and simony ; which are crimes against
the first and second commandment in the decalogue: as also
blasphemy, profane swearing, perjury, and breach of vows,
against the third commandment : all violations of the law
enjoining the religious observation of the Lord's day, against
the fourth commandment : all disobedience and disrespect to
parents,and treason and rebellion again stprinces,and general
contempt of the laws of the Church, infringing the obligations
of the fifth commandment: all the species of murder against
the sixth commandment ; and all species of uncleanness and

CHAP. V,] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 489
intemperance against the seventh : all kinds of theft, fraud
oppression, and injustice against the eighth : and all kinds
of false testimony, libelling, informing, calumny, and slan
der, against the ninth commandment ; because I have already
spoken of all these in particular, and shewn, that as they
were punished with excommunication in the laity, so they
were commonly punished with suspension or deprivation,
and sometimes with excommunication in the clergy also.
But besides these crimes, common both to laity and clergy,
there were many transgressions and offences,, that might be
committed by the clergy against the particular rules of their
function and profession : and of these we are here to make a
more special inquiry. Some of these respected their entrance
upon their office ; others, their behaviour in it. We will
now speak particularly, but briefly and succinctly, of both.
Sect. 2. — Some Crimes rendered an Ordination originally void, and for such
the Clergy were immediately liable to be degraded from their very first
Ordination. As, first, for Ignorance or Heterodoxy in Religion.
Some qualifications were originally required in the clergy
as necessary at their entrance upon the clerical life and
function : and therefore certain rules were prescribed for a
due examination and inquiry into these, before their ordina
tion ; and a defect in any of these qualifications, or a trans
gression against any of these rules, was enough to render
an ordination null and void ab origine ; so that the clergy
thus ordained, were liable to be degraded or deposed imme
diately from their very first ordination. Of these qualifica
tions, as I have had occasion to shew more at large in a
former Book,1 some respected their faith and knowledge,
others their former life and morals, and others their outward
quality and condition in the world : and a defect in any of
these qualifications, or a transgression of any of the rules
prescribed, was in the common course of the discipline of
the Church a sufficient reason to depose a clergyman as
soon as he was ordained. The first and principal qualifica-

' Book iv. chap. iii.

490 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
tion, so necessarily required, was an orthodox faith, and a
competent knowledge in the Scriptures and all things relat
ing- to the exercise of his function: and if either a bishop
was ordained without such an examination, or without such
qualifications, both the ordainer and the ordained were im
mediately to be deposed. The words of Justinian s law are
very express in this business :l » if any bishop is ordained con
trary to the forementioned observation, we command, that
both he, who is so ordained, be deposed, and also the bishop
who so illegally ordained him."
Sect. 3.— Secondly, for Immorality and Transgressing any of the known
Rules of Ordination.
Another strict inquiry was to be made into men's morals ;
and if in any notorious instance they had formerly been cul
pable and scandalous, their ordination was forbidden ; or if
by ignorance orsurreption they were ordained, they were im
mediately upon discovery and conviction to be suspended, if
not deposed. Thus in the Council of Neocaesarea we find
a rule,2 that if a presbyter confessed, that before his ordina
tion he had been guilty of corporal uncleanness, he was no
longer to be allowed to offer the sacrifice of the altar.
This sin always made a man irregular, though some were of
opinion, as the canon intimates, that other sins were done
away by ordination. The canons further required, that a
man should be no digamist, or twice married, nor married
to a widow, nor to any, that had been divorced from another
man : and if any such were ordained, by the same rule
of Justinian, they were immediately liable to be deposed.
It was forbidden likewise to ordain any man diroXtkvuivug,
that is, without fixing him to some particular diocese or
Church : and the ordination of any one contrary to this rule,
is by Pope Leo3 pronounced vain ; and by the great Council

1 Justin. Novel. 137. cap ii. Si quis autem prater memoratam obser-
vationem episcopus ordinetur, jubemus et ipsum omnibus modis episcopatu
dejici, eteum qui contra talem observationem eum ordinare ausus fuerit.
' Con. Neocssar.can. ix. Vid. Con. Nie. can. ix. et x. Con. Eli
ber. can.lxxvi. * Leo. Ep. xcii.ad Rusticum, cap.i.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 491
of Chalcedon,1 null and void. It was another rule of this
kind, for the preservation of good order in the Church, that
no bishop should ordain another man's clerk without his
consent: and if any one did so, the great Council of Nice,2
and the Council of Sardica,3 and the second of Aries,* pe
remptorily pronounce all such ordinations null and void. It
was required in the election and ordination of a bishop, that
there should be the general consent of these four parties,
the clergy, the people, the provincial bishops, and the me
tropolitan : and ordinations performed in derogation to any
part of this rule, are by abundance of canons declared abso
lutely void, and bishops so promoted are appointed to be
deposed. The Council of Antioch, is express in requiring
the presence, or consent of the provincial bishops5 and Me
tropolitan ; decreeing, that an ordination performed contrary
to this rule, shall be of no force, /zjjSev lo-)(viiv. The Coun
cil of Riez6 for this reason actually degraded Armentarius,
bishop of Ambrun, because he had neither the general con
sent of the provincial bishops, noT the metropolitan, but
was clancularly ordained by two bishops without the know
ledge of the other parties chiefly concerned. The canons,
in the Latin Church especially, are altogether as peremptory
and plain in disannulling all ordinations of bishops to any
place against the general consent of the people. Let no
bishop, says one of the Councils of Orleans,7 be imposed
upon a people against their wills. Nor let the clergy and
people be constrained to give their consent by the op
pression of any potent persons. If any such thing is done,
the bishop, who is so ordained rather by violence, than any
1 Con. Chalced. can. vi. See more of this Book iv. chap. vi. sect. 2.
8 Con. Nie. can. xvi. " Con. Sardic. can. xv.
* Con. Arelat. ii.e. 13. * Con. Antioch. can. xix.
• Con. Rhegiense, can. i. Ordinationem, quam canones irritam definiunt,
nos quoque vacuandam esse censuimus, in qua prnetermissa trium praasentia,
nee expetitis comprovincialium Uteris, metropolitani quoque voluntate neg
lects, prorsus nihil, quod episcopum faceret, ostensum est. Vid. Con.
Arelat. ii. can. 6. Con. Aurelian. v. can. 10. * Con. Aurelian.
can. xi. Nullus invitis detur episcopus, &c. quod si factum fuerit, ipse epis
copus, qui magis per violentiam quam per decretum legitimum ordinatur, ab
indepto pontificates honore in perpetuum deponatur.

492 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
legal decree, shall be deposed for ever from the honour of
his priesthood. In like manner the Council of Chalons,1 "a
bishop shall not be chosen to any city any other way, but by
the consent of the provincial bishops, the clergy, and the
people : if otherwise, the ordination shall be null and void.
To this agrees the resolution of Pope Leo,2 in answer to the
queries of a French bishop, that " reason will not allow those
to be reeeived as bishops, who were neither chosen by the
clergy, nor desired by the people, nor consecrated by the
provincial bishops with the judgment of the metropolitan."
And that rescript of Honorius concerning the election of
the bishop of Rome,3 that if two bishops were ordained by
two contending parties, neither of them should be bishop,
but one who was chosen out of the clergy by the judgment
of the provincial bishops and the consent of all the people.
So that if any bishop was ordained against these rules, his
ordination was void, and he was liable to be deposed, as
soon as he was ordained. So if any bishop was ordained,
who was before under the sentence of deposition, his ordi
nation was null, as was declared in the case of Timotheus
jEIurus, by several provincial councils related in the acts
of the Council of Chalcedon.* If a bishop was ordained
into a full see, where another was regularly ordained before
him, his ordination was of no effect: he was to be reputed
as no bishop, but to be rejected as an adulterer, an intruder,
an invader of other men's rights, and a wolf only in sheep's
clothing : which was the answer, that Cyprian5 gave in the
1 Con. Cabillon. i. can. 10. Si quis episcopus dequScunquecivitatefuerit
defunctus, non ab alio nisi a comprovincialibus, clero et civibus suis alterius
habeatur eleetio : sin aliter, hujus ordinatioirrita habeatur.
2 Leo. Ep. xcii. ad Rusticum Narbon. cap. i. Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter epis
copos habeantur, qui nee a. clericis sunt electi, nee a plebibus expetiti,
,nec ii provincialibus episcopis cum metropolitan! judicio consecrati.
8 Honorii Rescript, ad Bonifac.ap. Crab, torn i.
p. 491. Si duo contra fas temeritate certantes, fuerint ordinati, nullum ex his
futurumpenitus sacerdotem; sed ilium solum in sede apostolica permansu-
rum, quem ex numero clericorum, nova, ordinatione divinum judicium etuni-
versitatis consensus elegerit. * Synod. Cappadocia in act. Con.
Chalced. par. iii. Synon. Galatis. Ibid. cap. lvii. Synod. Paphlagon.
cap. liv. Synod. Corinth, cap. Ivi. s Cypr. Ep.lv. ad An-
tonian. p. 104.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 493
case of Novatian ; and the Council of Sardica in Hilary's
collection ;x and the oriental bishops and synods2 in the fore-
mentioned case of Timotheus ^Elurus, mentioned both by
Liberatus, and their own acts in the end of the Council of
Chalcedon. In like manner it was a rule in the Church,
that no energumen, or persons possessed with an evil spirit,
should be ordained: or if any such, by any chance or mis
take were ordained, he was immediately to be deposed.
This is very expressly decreed in the first Council of Orange.3
" Energumens are not only not to be taken into any order of
the clergy, but those who are already ordained, shall be
removed from their office also.'1 "There is a necessity of re
moving such demoniacs," says Gelasius,* "lest such ministers
should scandalize the weak, for whom Christ died." It was
another rule of the Church, that no one, who had voluntarily
disfigured or dismembered his own body, should ever be ad
mitted to any sacred order :s and therefore if any such were
actually ordained, by the order of the great Council of Nice6
they were to cease from officiating ; to be secluded from
the clerical function, as soon as discovered, according to
the decree of Gelasius ;7 or, as the Roman Council under
Hilary words it,8 if any such crept into orders, the bishop
who consecrated them, was obliged to nullify and dissolve
his own act, as soon as the fraud was discovered. Another
rule was, that no person who was unbaptized, or irregularly
baptised without the due form of baptism, should be admit
ted to holy orders : and for this reason the Council of Nice9
ordered all such as were ordained by the Paulianists, to be
both rebaptised and reordained, if they were otherwise found
qualified for their function. A like order was made con-

1 Hilar. deSynodis, p. 128. 2 Liberat.Breviar. cap. xv. Acta
Con.Chalced. par. iii. epist. 38, 39, 41. 8 Con. Arausican. i.
can. 16. Energumeni non solum non assumendi sunt ad ullum ordinem cleri-
catfls, sed et illi qui ordinati jam sunt, ab imposito officio sunt repellendi.
* Gelas. Ep. ix. ad Episc. Lucanias, cap. xxi. Necessario removendi sunt,
ne quibuslibet, pro quibus Christus est mortuus, scandalum generetur inflrmis.
s Vid. Canon. Apost. xxi. Con. Arelat. ii. can. 7. "Con. Nie.
can. i. ' Gelas. Ep. ix. cap. 19. * Con. Rom. can. iii.
9 Con, Nie. can. xix.

494 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
cerning all such as were baptised among heretics, or re
baptised by them; that no such should be ordained: and if
any of either kind were surreptitiously admitted to orders,
they were to be deposed, under penalty of deposition to the
bishop himself, who should presume either to ordain any
such,1 or not remove them when fraudulently ordained by
others. If any one made use of the secular powers to gain
a promotion in the Church, by a rule of the Apostolical
Canons he was to be deposed ;2 and all that communicated
with him, were to be suspended from Christian communion.
If a bishop ordained any of his unworthy kindred for mere
favour, by a rule of the same Apostolical Canons the ordi
nation was null, and the bishop himself was to be suspen
ded.3 And to this agrees the order made in the tenth
Council of Toledo to the same purpose.* If a bishop or
dained his own successor, by a rule of the Council of
Antioch his ordination was null,* because it was clandes-
dinely done without the consent of a provincial synod. Or
if a bishop was ordained only by two bishops, for the same
reason he was liable to be deposed, because it was done
against the rule, which required the concurrence of the me
tropolitan and the provincial synod. Therefore the first
Council of Orange ordered in such a case,6 that if two
bishops presumed to ordain a bishop by themselves, both
the ordaining bishops were to be deposed ; and if the bishop
was ordained against his will, he should be put into the
place of one of the deposed bishops : but if he was ordained
by his own consent, then he also was to be deposed, that
1 Felic. iii. Ep. i. c. 5. Qui in qualibet setate, alibi quam in ecclesia catholica,
aut baptizati aut re-bapti zati sunt, ad ecclesiasticam militiam prorsus non ad-
mittantur. — Quoniam de suo ordine et communione videbitur ferre judicium,
quisquis hoc violaverit institutum, vel qui non removerit eum, quem ex eis
ad ministerium clericale obrepsisse cognoverit. s Canon. Apostol.
can. xxx. s Canon. Apost. lxxvi. * Con. Tolet. x.
can. 3. s Con. Antioch. can. xxiii. 6 Con. Arausic. i.
can. 21. Duo si prasumpseritordinare episcopum, placuit de prsesumptori-
bus, ut sicubi contigerit, duos episcopos invitum episcopum facere, auctoribus
damnatis, unius eorum ecclesiae, ipse, qui vim passus est, substituatur : si
voluutarium duo feeerint, et ipse damnabitur, quo cautiiis ea, quae sunt an-
tiquitus instituta, serventur.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 49
the rule prescribed by the ancient Canons might be more
cautiously observed. And the Council of Riez1 actually de
posed Armentarius, bishop of Ambrun, for this very reason,
because he had not three bishops to ordain him. All these
were trangressions against the known rules of ordination, and
imputed to men as immoralities, because they were violations
of those good rules and orders, which were made with
great wisdom for the regular government and benefit of the
Church. And therefore if in any of these cases a crime
was committed, the ordination was liable to be declared void
originally by the discipline of the Church ; and the clergy
so ordained, might be deposed, as soon as they were or
dained, for the offences committed in their ordination, lt
is true indeed, the Church did not always actually depose
such: but then she dispensed with her own rules, and such
dispensations were only matters of favour and indulgence, in
some special cases, when the Church for prudential reasons
thought fit to relax her discipline, and grant men such allow
ances, as in strictness of law they could not challenge : the
general rules of discipline were still in force, though the
Church did not always think it proper to put them strictly
in execution.
Sect. 4. — No Remedy allowed in this Case by doing public Penance for
Offences.
Neither was it any remedy in this case, that men made a
solemn atonement for their crimes before the Church, by
doing public penance for them. For this was so far from
opening their way to a regular ordination, that it was one of
those things, that rendered them incapable of it ; or if by
any secret methods they had attained it, this was thought a
sufficient reason to withdraw their orders, and degrade them.
No one that has done public penance, says the fourth Coun
cil of Carthage,2 shall be ordained a clerk, though he be
1 Con. Rhegiens. can. i. s Con. Carth. iv. can. 68. Ex pceni-
teutibus, quamvis sit bonus, clericus non ordinetur. Si per ignorantiam
episcopi factum fuerit, deponatur a clero, quia se ordinationis tempore non
prodidit fuisse pcenitentem.

496 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
otherwise a good man: or if by concealment from the
bishop's knowledge this happen to be done, the clerk shall
be deposed, because he confessed not at the time of his or
dination, that he had done penance in the Church. After
the same manner the Roman Council under Pope Hilarius
makes the doing of public penance as much a bar to a
man's ordination, as the profoundest ignorance, or mangling
his own body:1 and declares, that whatever bishop conse
crates any such, he shall be obliged to reverse and cancel
his own act ; that is, immediately deprive them of their or
ders, and degrade them. The like was determined by Pope
Innocent in the case of one Modestus, who after he had
done penance for many crimes, not only was ordained a
clergyman, which was against law, but also aimed at a
bishopric. His determination upon the point is this ; that he
ought not only to be defeated in his expectation of a bishop
ric,2 but according to the Canons of Nice be removed
from all office among the clergy.3 The third Council of
Orleans enacted the same: no one shall be promoted to holy
orders, who has either been married to two wives, or. mar
ried a widow, or done public penance, &c. And if any
bishop wittingly act against these rules, he that is ordained
shall be deprived of his office, and the bishop himself for
six months sequestered or suspended from his ministration.*
The Council of Agde a little moderates the punishment,6 al
lowing such presbyters and deacons, who had done pe
nance, to retain the name and honours of their orders, but
forbidding deacons to minister the cup, or presbyters to
consecrate the oblation of the altar. And the first Council
of Toledo degrades them,6 not totally, but allows deacons,
thus ordained out of penitents, to take place among the
sub-deacons, that is, in the next inferior order. Thus one

rum

1 Con. Rom. can. iii. Inscii quoque literarum, uecnon et aliqua meuibro-
m damna perpessi, et hi qui ex poenitentibus sunt, ad sacros ordines ad-
spirare non audeant. Quisquis talium consecrator extiterit, factum suum
ipse dissolvet. 8 Innocent. Ep. vi. ad Episcopos Apulise, Non solum
ab episcopat&s ambitione, sed etiam a clericatus removeatur officio.
'Cou.Nic. can. ix. et x. * Con. Aurelian. iii. can. 6. 'Con.
Agathen. can. xliii. 6 Con. Tolet. i. can 2.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 497
way or other, every clergyman, who had done penance
whilst he was a layman, was corrected and punished, for not
declaring, when he was ordained, that he was in such a
state, as by the rules of the Church was made a just impe
diment to his ordination : and it was always thought scan
dalous and offensive, to allow any man to officiate as a pub
lic minister, who had before been a public penitent in the
Church. The Church could admit them to pardon and re
conciliation after penance, but would not allow them to as
pire to any dignity, or continue them in any sacred office of
the clerical function.
Sect. 5.- Some Impediments of Ordination arising from Men's outward
State and Condition in the World, made sometimes Occasion of their
Deprivation. There was another sort of impediments of ordmation,
which as I observed, arose not from any criminal action in
men, but barely from their outward state and condition in
the world ; because it happened to be incompatible and in
consistent with the duties of the sacred order : and therefore
many strict rules were made to prohibit the ordination of
men in such a capacity, and to remove them back again from
the clerical to a secular state, if they happened to be unwa
rily ordained against any such prohibitions. Thus to in
stance in a few particulars. The military calling, (under
which, as I have shewn in another place,1 were compre
hended not only the armed soldiery of the camp, but also
all officers of the emperor's palace, and all apparitors and
officials of judges or governors of provinces,) I say, the mi
litary calling in this comprehensive sense was reckoned in
consistent with the duties of the clerical life: because the
men of this vocation were tied by the laws to the service of
the empire ; and therefore the laws both of church and state
forbad the admission of them into any order of the Church ;
and if they were admitted by any fraud or mistake, they
were liable to be deposed, and returned back to their ancient
1 Book iv. chap. iv. sect. 1.
VOL. VI. 2 K

498 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
service. The Church had another reason also for refusing
the soldiers of the camp, because probably they had em-
brewed their hands in blood, and no such were capable of
ordination. Therefore, when some such were got into or
ders in the Spanish Churches, Pope Innocent wrote a sharp
letter to the synod of Toledo, telling them, that by reason
of the numbers of those who had been so ordained, it was
proper to suffer them to continue, for fear of giving dis
turbance to the Church, and to leave them to the judgment
of God : but for the future, if any such were ordained, both
the ordainers and the ordained should be deposed.1 And
the Council of Toledo so far complied with his admonition,3
as to decree, that if any soldiers had been admitted to any of
the inferior orders, they should never rise higher than to the
dignity of deacons in the Church. The ordination of slaves
and vassals was prohibited upon the same account, because
they were tied by the law to the service of their temporal
masters : so likewise all members of any civil company, or
society of tradesmen, because they were tied to the service
of the commonwealth : and all those, who went by the name
of Curiales, or Decuriones, in the Roman Government;
being members of the Curia, that is, the court or com
mon-council of any city, to whose service they were
tied by virtue of their estates and possessions. The ordi
nation of all these sorts of men was generally forbidden
both by the laws of Church and state: and if any such
were irregularly ordained, masters had liberty to reclaim
their slaves ; and the state her soldiers ; and any corporation
or curia, their deserting members : and the Church, except
in some special cases, was bound to depose them, and
readily consented to restore them to their ancient secular
station and employment again. Of all which I have given

1 Innocent. Ep. xxiv. ad Synod. Toletan. cap. ii. Quicunque tales ordi
nati fuerint, cum ordinatoribus suis deponantur.
* Con. Tolet. i. can. 8. Si quis post baptismum inilitaverit  etiamsi
gravia non admiserit, si ad clerum admissus fuerit, diaconii non aecipiat
dignitatem.

OHAP. V.j CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 499
a large account in a former book,1 and here only hint them
to explain the discipline of the Church.
Sect. 6.— i-What Crimes might occasion the Deprivation of the Clergy, or
other Censures, in the Performance of their Office. 1, Clergymen to be
censured for Contempt of the Canons.
We have hitherto considered the causes and occasions of
men's deprivation, arising from some irregularities committed
in their entrance upon the clerical office: we are next to
view what crimes "might occasion their deprivation, or
make them liable to other censures, in the performance of it.
And here in the first place it may be noted in general, that a
clergyman was ever liable to be censured for any contempt
of the Canons. Concerning which there are directions given
in the first Council of Carthage,2 and Turin, and Braga, and
several others: but as these equally effect both clergy and
laity, I need not be more particular in relating them at
length, having done it once before in the general account
of discipline in the former book.3
Sect. 7. — 2. For Negligence in their Duty.
2. They were more especially liable to censure for negli
gence in their office, or any great irregularity committed in
the execution of it. If a bishop or a presbyter be negligent
toward the other clergy or people, not instructing them in
the ways of godliness, he shall be suspended, says the apos
tolical Canons:* and if he continues in his neglect and sloth-
fulness, he shall be deposed. This neglect is termed sacri
lege in the civil law,5 and accordingly to be punished under
that denomination.
Sect. 8. — 3. For neglecting to use the public Liturgy, Lord's Prayer,
Hymns, &c.
3. If the clergy neglected to use the publie liturgy, or
1 Book iv. chap. iv. sect. 2, &c. * Con. Carth. i. can. xiv.
Con. Taurin. can, ii. Con. Bracaren. i. can. 40. " Book xvi.
chap. ix. sect. 5. * Canon. Apost. lviii. 6 Cod.
Theod. lib. xvi. tit. ii. de Episcopis. Leg. xxv.
2 K 2

500 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII
any part of it, the Lord's Prayer, the stated and received
Hymns, &c. they were liable to censure and condemnation.
The 4th council of Toledo has several Canons to this pur
pose. If any priest or inferior clerk, says one canon,1 neg
lect to use the Lord's Prayer daily, either in public or in
private, let him be condemned for his pride, and be deprived
of the honour of his order. Another establishes the use of2
the common prayers, and the doxology, Glory be to the
Father, &c. and the Hymns of St. Hilary and St. Ambrose,
composed in honour of the apostles and martyrs, under the
penalty of excommunication to any priest in Spain or Gal-
licia, that should presume to reject them. Another confirms
the use of the Hymn of three children under the same
penalty.3 A fourth Canon orders after what manner and
form the Gloria Patri shall be sung by all ecclesiastics:*
and a fifth appoints the reading of the Apocalyps at a cer
tain season of the year, between Easter and Pentecost,5 de
nouncing the same sentence and punishment of excommu
nication to any, who should either reject the book as unea-
nonical, or neglect to use it in divine service according to
appointment. Sect. 9. — 4. For making any Alteration in the Form of Baptism.
4. If a minister made any material alteration in the man
ner of administering the sacraments, he was liable to be de
posed for his presumption ; as if he either changed the
general form of words used in baptism, or the trine immer
sion received by universal custom in all Churches. If any
bishop or presbyter, says one of the Apostolical Canons,6
baptize not according to the commandment of the Lord, in

1 Con. Tolet. iv. can. 9. Quisquis sacerdotum vel subjacentiumclerico-
rum, orationem dominicam quotidie aut in publico aut in privato officio pras-
terierit, propter superbiamjudicatus, ordinis sui honore privetur.
3 Ibid. can. 12. Sicut orationes, ita et hymnos in laudem Dei compositos,
nullus nostrum ulterius improbet, sed pari modo in Gallicia Hispaniaque
celebrent, excommunicatione plectendi, qui hymnos rejicere fuerint ausi.
5 Ibid. can. 13. Communionem amissuri, qui antiquam hujus hymni con-
suetudinem, nostramque definitionem excesserint. * ibid. can. 14.
* Ibid. can. 16. ° Canon. Apost. xlix.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 501
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : but in three
unoriginated beings, rptXg 'Avdpxsg, or three sons, or three
paracletes, let him be deposed. And the next Canon says,
if a bishop or presbyter use not three immersions in tbe
mystery of baptism, but only one immersion into the death
of Christ, let him be deposed. For the Lord said not, bap
tize into my death, but, " go teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost." Sect. 10. — 5. For not frequenting Divine Service daily.
5. If any clergyman neglected to frequent the Church
and divine service daily, even when he did not officiate or
celebrate himself, he was liable to be deposed, if after ad
monition he persisted obstinately in his contempt. To this
purpose it is decreed by the first Council of Toledo,1 that " if
any presbyter, deacon, or subdeacon, or other clerk deputed
to the service of the Church, being in any city or place
where there is a church, or castle, or village, or hamlet,
shall neglect to come to church and the daily sacrifice, he
shall be no longer accounted a clerk, unless upon admoni
tion from the bishop he make satisfaction, and obtain pardon
for his offences." The council of Agde reduces such to the
communion of strangers,2 that is, suspends them from their
office: and the law of Justinian orders them to be degraded,3
because of the scandal they give to the laity by such neg
lect or contempts of divine service.
Sect. 11. — 6. For meddling with secular Offices.
6. If any clergyman entangled and embarrassed himself
in secular offices, because this was an unnecessary avoca
tion from his own employment, and hindrance to the proper
1 Con. Tolet. i. can. 5. Presbyter, vel diaconus, vel subdiaconus, vel
quilibet ecclesiae deputatus clericus, si intra civitatem fuerit, vel in loco in
quo ecclesia est, aut castellaaut vici sunt aut villa?, si ad ecclesiam aut ad
sacrificium quotidianum non venerit, clericus non habeatur, si castigatus,
per satisfactionem veniam ab episcopo noluit promereri. 2 Con. Aga
then. can. ii. 3 Cod. Just. lib. i. tit. iii. de Episcopis. leg. xii. q. 10,

502 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
business of his calling, he was liable to be deposed. No
bishop or presbyter, says one of the Apostolical Canons,1
shall thrust himself tig ^IJ-oo-iag Sioucfaig, into any public ad
ministrations or employments, but keep himself always in
readiness for the service of the Church. Let him therefore
either incline his mind not to do this, or let him be deposed.
For no man can serve two masters, according to what the
Lord appointed. And another Canon says,2 a bishop, pres
byter, or deacon, that employs himself in a military ljfe, and
would retain both a Roman office and an ecclesiastical func
tion together, shall be deposed. For we must" render unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things
that are God's." The first council of Carthage forbids3
clergymen to take upon them the administration or steward
ship of any houses, because the apostle says, " no man that
warreth "in God's service," entangleth himself in the affairs
of this life." Therefore clergymen must either quit their stew
ardships, or stewards their clerical office. But because ne
cessity or charity might seem to require clergymen to
engage a little in secular affairs in some special cases, the
Council of Chalcedon delivers the rule with some distinc
tion.* Whereas we are informed, that some of the clergy for
filthy lucre's sake hire other mens possessions, and exercise
themselves in worldly affairs, neglecting the service of God,
living in the houses of secular men, and taking upon them
the management of their estates out of covetousness and the
love of money ; the holy synod decrees, that henceforth no
bishop, clergyman or monk shall either hire any possessions
or put himself into any secular administrations, unless by
the law he be called to the unavoidable care or guardianship
of orphans, or the bishop of the place permit him to be
the procurator of the Church revenues, or to take the care of
widows and orphans and such other helpless persons as need
the assistance of the Church, which may be done in the fear
of the Lord. If any one henceforward transgress these rules,
1 Canon. Apost. lxxxi. 9 Ibid. can. lxxxxiii. Vid. can. vii.
ibid. Koa/iucag (ppovritag p.rj avaXaiifSaviru)- ii tE pi) KaOaipEiaSita.
1 Con. Carth. i. can. 6. * Con. Chalced. can. iii.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 503
he shall be liable to ecclesiastical censure. There are many
other laws forbidding them to be sureties, or pleaders at the
bar for themselves or others in any civil contest, or to follow
any secular trade or merchandise ; but these with some limi
tations and exceptions ; of all which, because I have had
occasion to discourse more fully in a former book,1 I need
say no more in this place.
Sect. 12.— 7. For deserting their own Church without Licence to go to
another.
7. It was another crime of the like nature, for a clergyman
to desert and relinquish his own church, to which he was
originally fixed and appointed by his ordination, without
licence, from the bishop to whose jurisdiction he belonged.
For though this was not properly an absolute and universal
renunciation and desertion of the Church's service ; yet it
was a manifest breach of good order, and a transgression of
an useful rule established by often repeated injunctions over
the Church universal, that no clerk should leave his own
bishop's Church or diocese without his consent, nor find re
ception in any other, to the prejudice of the bishop who first
ordained him. If any presbyter, deacon, or other clerk, say
the Apostolical Canons,2 forsake his own diocese to go to
another, and there continue without the consent of his own
bishop ; we decree, that such an one shall no longer continue
to minister as a clerk (especially if after admonition he refuse
to return) but only be admitted to communicate as a layman.
And if the bishop, to whom they repair, shall entertain them
in the quality of clergymen, he shall be excommunicated, as
a master of disorder. The same rule is frequently repeated
in the ancient Canons, to which I have referred the reader3
in another place.
Sect. 13. — 8. For officiating after the Condemnation of a Synod.
8. If any clergyman pretended to officiate after he was
' Book vi. chap. iv. sect. 9, 10, 11, &c. z Canon. Apost. 15 et 16.
' Book vi. chap. iv. sect. 4.

504 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
censured and condemned by a synod, before he was absolved
by that or another synod, he was to be deposed for his con
tempt, without hopes of restitution. This was first decreed
in the Apostolical Canons :l if any bishop, presbyter, or
deacon, who is justly deposed for his crimes, presume to
meddle with the service belonging to his order, let him be
wholly cut off from the communion of the Church. The
Council of Antioch repeats this rule a little more explicitly :9
If any bishop, who is deposed by a synod, or presbyter, or
deacon, who is deposed by his own bishop, presume to offi
ciate in their ministry, they shall have no hopes of being re
stored even by another synod, nor any room left for satis
faction : and all that communicate with them, shall be cast
out of the Church, especially if they do it after they are
apprised of the sentence pronounced against them. This
canon is repeated and confirmed by the great Council of
Chalcedon,3 as a standing rule then inserted into the code
of the universal Church.

Sect. 14. — 9. For appealing from the Censure of a Provincial Synod to
foreign Churches.
9. In this case the Church allowed of appeals, that if any
one was injured or oppressed by any rash or violent pro
ceeding, he might have justice done him in a provincial
synod. But then this liberty of appeals was limited to the
place or province where the party lived, and he might not
fly to another country under pretence of more impartial jus
tice. The bishops of Rome indeed sometimes laid claim to
a peculiar prerogative in this matter, as if they had power to
receive appellants from other Churches, and hear and de
termine the causes arising in foreign countries at the great
est distance and under different jurisdictions; but St. Austin
and the African Fathers stoutly opposed these encroach
ments, and withal made a decree, that if any African clerk
appealed from the sentence of his own bishop, or a synod of
1 Canon. Apost. xxviii. s Con. Antioch. can. iv.
8 Con. Chalced. act. iv. Con. tom. iv.p. 538.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 505
select judges, he should appeal to none but African synods,
or the primates of the provinces. And if any presumed to
appeal beyond seas, meaning to Rome, he should be exclu
ded from all communion in the African Churches. This
decree was first made in the Council of Milevis,1 and after
ward confirmed by several acts of their general synods, made
upon the famous case and appeal of Apiarius, an African
presbyter, whom Pope Zosimus pretended to restore to com
munion after he had been deposed by an African council.
What opposition the African Fathers made to this presump
tion, during the lives of three Popes successively, Zosimus,
Boniface, and Celestin, and what arguments they went upon,
I have formerly2 shewn out of the canons of the African3
Code : and I only note it here with all brevity, to explain
the ancient discipline in this point from the current tenour
and practice of the Church.
Sect. 15. — 10. For refusing to end Controversies before Bishops, and
flying to a secular Tribunal.
10. Another thing, which subjected clergymen to eecle
siastical censure, was refusing to end their controversies be
fore bishops, and chusing rather to fly to the secular tribu
nals. The laws of the state permitted, and the laws of the
Church obliged them to bring all their disputes with one
another under the cognizance of an ecclesiastical tribunal.
I have had occasion, once before,* to speak of this as a pri
vilege and immunity granted to the clergy by the imperial
laws, and all I shall remark further concerning it here, is
only what relates to the discipline of the Church : in refer
ence to which the Council of Chalcedon decreed,5 that if
any clergyman had a controversy with another, he should

1 Con. Milevit. can. xxii. Quod si et ab eis appellandum putaverint, non
provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad primates provinciarum suarum.
Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, a. nullo intra Africam in
communione suscipiatur. 2 Book ix. chap. i. sect. 11.
8 Cod. Afric. a cap. cxxxv. ad cap. cxxxviii. * Book v. chap, i,
sect. 4. * Con. Chalced.can. ix. Vid. Con. Veneticum. can. ix.

506 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
not leave his own bishop, and betake himself to a secular
court; but first have an hearing before his own bishop, or
such arbitrators as the parties should chuse, with the
bishop's approbation. Otherwise he should be liable to
canonical censure : which censure in the African Church was
the loss of his place, whether he were bishop, presbyter, or
deacon, or any other inferior clerk, that declined the sen
tence of an ecclesiastical court, in a criminal cause, and be
took himself to a secular court for justice: or if it was a
civil cause, he must lose whatever advantage he gained by
the action, as the third Council of Carthage determined in
the case,1 because he despised the whole Church, in that he
could not confide in any ecclesiastical persons to be his
judges. The Council of Milevis added to this,2 that no cler
gyman should so much as petition the emperor to assign him
secular judges in any case, but only ecclesiastical, under
pain of deprivation. And this seems to be the true meaning
of those two famous Canons of the Council of Antioch,
which have been so generally mistaken by modern authors,
as if they had been made only by a cabal of Arians, against
the person of Athanasius, when indeed they contain nothing
but an ancient rule of discipline universally observed
throughout the Church. The words of the Canons are
these :3 if any bishop, or presbyter, or any one within the
canon or roll of the clergy belonging to the Church, shall
presume to address the emperor without the consent and
letters of the provincial bishops, and especially of the metro
politan, he shall be rejected and expelled, not only from
communion, but from whatever honour and dignity he en
joys, as one thatfills the prince's ears with troublesome com
plaints, against the law of the Church. But if any neces
sary cause call him to address the prince, he shall do it by
the advice and consent of the metropolitan and the rest of
the provincial bishops, who in that case shall assist him with

1 Con. Carth. iii. can. 9. * Con. Milevit. can. 19. Quicunque
ab imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum petierit, honore proprio
privelur. Si autem episcopalc judicium ab imperatore postulaverit, nihil ei
obsit. 5 Con. Antioch. can. xi.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 507
their recommendatory letters also. The other Canon says,1
if any presbyteT or deacon is deposed by his bishop, or any
bishop by a synod, he shall not presume to trouble the em
peror with complaints, but have recourse to a greater synod
of bishops, and lay the justice of his cause before them, and
wait for their discussion and determination. But, if in con
tempt of this method he trouble tbe prince, he shall have
no pardon, uot Toom for defence, nor any hopes of restitu
tion. The generality of modern writers, following the cen
sure passed upon this canon by the famous Antonius Augus
tinus,2 and Baronius,3 commonly reckon it a canon made by
the Arian faction against Athanasius ; and say, it is the
same canon that was alledged against Chrysostom by his
adversaries, and rejected by him and his advocates, as an
Arian Canon, in the following ages. But the learned
Schelstrate, who has particularly vindicated the authority
of the Council of Antioch,* shews this to be a vulgar error;
demonstrating, that the Arian canon was very different from
this, and that this canon of Antioch was conformable to the
received discipline of the ancient Church. For as such, it
was inserted into the code of the universal Church, and
acknowledged by the Council of Chalcedon, and all the
collectors of the canons, Ferrandus Diaconus, Martin
BracaTensis, and the Capitulars of Charles the Great. Be
sides that the Council of Vannes has a canon to the same
purpose :5 " if a clerk suspects the judgment of his own
bishop, or has any controversy with him concerning any
property, he shall require an hearing before other bishops,
and not before the secular powers : otherwise he shall be
cast out of communion." From all which it is plain, nothing
more was intended by the Council of Antioch, but only to
oblige clergymen to end all their controversies before a
1 Con. Antioch. can. xii. 3 Anton. August, de Emendatione
Gratiani, lib. i.dial. xi. p. 123. s Baron, an.cccxli. n. 28.
* Schelstrate de Concilio Antioch. p. 541. 6 Con. Veneticum, can. ix".
Clericus, si fortasse episcopi sui judicium coeperit habere suspectum, aut
, ipsi de proprietate aliqua adversus ipsum episcopum fuerit nata contentio,
aliorum episcoporum audientiam, non seculariuinpotestatum, debebit anibiie.
Aliter a communione habebitur alienus.

508 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
synod of bishops, which is agreeable to the general rule
and discipline of the Church.
Sect. 16.— 11. Forbeing re-baptised or re-ordained.
11. The laws of the Church were further severe against
all re-ordinations in the clergy, and against all re-baptiza-
tions both in clergymen and laymen : and therefore any
clergyman, who submitted either actively or passively to
either of these, rendered himself obnoxious to the highest
censure. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, say the
Apostolical Canons,1 receive a second ordination, both the
ordainer and the ordained shall be deposed ; except it ap
pear that his first ordination was given him by heretics :
for they, that are baptized or ordained by heretics, are neither
to be accounted clergymen nor faithful laymen. Optatus2
says, that among other reasons why Donatus was condemn
ed and deposed by the Council of Rome under Melchiades,
this was one, that he had given imposition of hands to such
bishops as had lapsed in time of persecution, which was con
trary to the custom of the Catholic Church. If imposition
of hands there signify ordination, then his crime was, that he
had re-ordained them: but if, as Albaspinseus thinks both
in his notes and observations, it only means imposition of
hands in penance, then we are to lay no stress upon it, be
cause it relates to a different subject. As to rebaptization,
the case was the same : the Apostolical Canons appointed,3
that if any bishop or presbyter presumed to give a second
baptism after a true one once received, he should be degra
ded. And the council of Rome under Felix III. decreed,
that if a bishop, presbyter or deacon, suffered himself to be so
rebaptised,* he should be degraded, and do penance all his
life, without being suffered to communicate either in the
prayers of the faithful, or the prayers of the catechumens,
and only be admitted tb lay-communion at the hour of
death ; because such had not only denied their orders, but

1 Canon. Apost. lxviii. 2 Optat. lib. i. p. 44.
Canon. Apost. xlvii. * Vid.Felic ep. i. cap. 2.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 509
their Christianity, and openly professed themselves pagans,
by being rebaptized. The civil law confirmed these cen
sures of the Church, and added some temporal penalties, to
give them greater force ; of which the reader may find a
more particular account in a former book.1
Sect. 17. — 12. For denying themselves to be Clergymen.
12. It was a crime of the like nature for any clergyman
to deny his order in words, or dissemble his profession be
fore a Jew or an Heathen ; because this was but one degree
below the renunciation of his religion. " If any clergy
man," says one of the Apostolical Canons,2 "through human
fear of a Jew, or an Heathen, or an Heretic, deny the name
of Christ, let him be cast out of the Church : if he deny the
name of a clergyman, let him be deposed ; but upon his re
pentance let him be received as a layman."
Sect. 18. — 13. For publishing Apocryphal Books.
13. If any clergyman was convict of publishing any
apocryphal books, or books written by impious men under
false titles, as sacred and pious writings, to the corruption
and seducement both of laity and clergy ;3 by another of the
Apostolical Canons he was to be deposed. Tertullian gives
an instance of the exercise of discipline in this case upon
an Asiatic presbyter,* who wrote the book called, the Acts of
Paul and Thecla, under the feigned name of the Apostle.
He pleaded in his own behalf, that he did it out of love to
St. Paul ; but this would not satisfy the Church : for upon
conviction and confession of the facts, she obliged the man to
quit his office for his transgression.
Sect. 19. — 14. For superstitious Abstinence from Flesh, Wine, &c.
14. Clergymen were likewise liable to be deposed for any
superstitious abstinence from flesh, wine, marriage, or any

1 Book xii. chap. v. sect. 7. 2 Canon. Apost. lxii.
1 Ibid. lx. * Tertul. de Baptismo, cap. xvii.

510 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
the like innocent and lawful things ; when they refrained
from them, not for exercise sake, but out of a false and here
tical opinion, that they were polluted and unclean. There
was always a grand dispute about meats and marriage be
tween the Church and several sects, that opposed her con
tinually upon this point, Many heretics, such as the
Manichees, Priscillianists, and others, pretended to be more
spiritual and refined, because they abstained from wine and
flesh as things unlawful and unclean ; and upon this score
censured the Church as impure and carnal, for allowing men
in the just and moderate use of them. If any clergymen
therefore so far complied with heretics, as either in their
judgment to approve their errors, or in their practice by an
universal abstinence to give suspicion of their siding with
them ; they made themselves obnoxious to the highest cen
sures. The Apostolical Canons order, that if any bishop,
presbyter, or deacon1, or any other clerk, abstain from mar
riage, flesh, or wine, not for exercise but abhorrence; forget
ting, that God made all" things very good, and created man,
male and female, and speaking evil of the workmanship of
God: unless he correct his error, he shall be deposed, and
cast out of the Church. Another Canon gives the reason
of this censure,2because such an one has a seared conscience,
and is the cause of scandal to the people. The Council of
Ancyra condemns the same error,3 and inflicts the like
penalty of degradation upon any clergymen that should he
found guilty of it. And in the first Council of Braga an
order was made, that all clergymen, who abstained from
flesh, should sometimes eat herbs boiled with flesh, to avoid
the suspicion of the Priscillian heresy. And if they refused
to do this, they should be excommunicated, and removed
from their office,* according to the direction of the ancient
Canons, as men suspected of that heresy, which then reigned
in the Spanish Churches.

1 Canon. Apost. li. s Ibid. can. liii. s Con.
Ancyr. can. xv. Vid. Con. Gangren. can. ii. * Con. Bracaren. i.
can. 32.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 511

Sect. 20. — 15. For eating of Blood.
15. But on the other hand, because it was the custom of
the Catholic Church, almost till the time of St. Austin, to
abstain from eating of blood, in compliance with the rule
given by the Apostles to the Gentile controverts : therefore
by the most ancient laws of the Church all clergymen were
obliged to abstain from it under pain of degradation. This
is evident from the Apostolical Canons,1 and those of
Gangra,2 and the second Council of Orleans,3 and the Coun
cil of Trullo.* But as this was looked upon by some only as
a temporary injunction, so it appears from St. Austin,5 that
in his time it was of no force in the African Church. For
he says, in his time few men thought themselves under any
obligation to observe it, or made any scruple of eating
blood. So that this -rule of discipline is to be taken with
this limitation and restriction, as to what concerns the prac
tice of the aneient Church. He that would see more about
it, may consult Curcellaeus,6 who has written a large disser
tation upon the subject.
Sect. 21. — 16. For contemning the Fasts and Festival of the Church.
16. The. custom of the ancient Church was with a great
deal of strictness to observe many stated fasts and festivals :
as the annual fast of lent, and the weekly fasts of the station
ary days, that is, Wednesday and Friday in eveTy week, and
the anniversary returns or commemorations of the great
action's of our Saviour's life, and his Apostles and Martyrs :
and therefore some Canons lay great penalties especially
upon clergymen, who shewed any disrespect to these by a
wilful contempt or neglect of them. " If any bishop, or
presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or singer," says one of the

1 Canon. Apost. lxiii. 3 Con. Gangren. can. ii.
s Con. Aurel. ii. can. 20. * C on. Trull, can. lxvii.
6 Aug. cont. Faust, lib. xxxii. cap. 13. • Curcel. de Esu San
guinis, cap. xiii.

512 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
Apostolical Canons,1 " observe not the Lent fast, or the fast
of the fourth and sixth days of the week, he shall be deposed,
unless he be hindered by bodily weakness and infirmity."
The Council of Gangra2 goes a little further, and denounces
anathema to all the ascetics of the Church, who without any
plea of bodily necessity, but mere pride and haughtiness,
neglect and despise the fasts commonly received in the
Church, and observed by ancient tradition. And another
Canon denounces anathema likewise against all,3 who ac
cuse the assemblies made at the monuments of the Martyrs,
or abhor the service that is performed there, or despise the
memorials or annual commemorations that were made in
honour of them. A like Canon was made in the first Coun
cil of Carthage,* " that if any one reproachfully said or did
any thing to the dishonour of the Martyrs; if he was
a layman, he should be put under penance : but if he was
a clergyman, after admonition and conviction he should be
deprived of his honour and dignity." And some other
Canons were made by the Council of Laodicea to the same
purpose.5 Sect. 22. — 17. For not observing the Rule about Easter.
17. Some Canons also make it a great transgression, not
to observe the rule that was settled by the Church in the
Council of Nice, for fixing the time of keeping the paschal
festival. For though a great liberty was allowed before in
this matter, by reason of the disputes that were between the
Roman and Asiatic Churches about it : yet when once the
great Council of Nice had interposed her authority to end
the controversy, it was no longer esteemed a matter of in-
differency ; but all Churches were obliged to comply with
her determination. Therefore the Council of Antioch not
long after made a very peremptory decree,6 that whoever
1 Canon. Apost. lxix. 2 Con. Gangren. can. xix.
3 Ibid. can. xx. * Con. Carth. i. can. 2. Si quis adinjuriam
martyrum, claritati eorum adjungat infamiam, placet eos, si laici sint, ad
poenitentiam redlgi : si autem sunt clerici, post commonitionem et post cog-
nitionem, honore privari. 6 Con. Laodic. can. 34 et 35.
6 Con. Antioch. can. i.

CHAP. V.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 513
pertinaciously opposed the rule agreed upon in the Nicene
Council, should be excommunicated and expelled the Church
, if he were a layman. And if either bishop/presbyter or dea
con should subvert the people, and disturb the Church by
keeping Easter, in a different manner, with the Jews, they
should be removed from their ministry, and be cast out of
the Church: and whoever communicated with them after
such censure, should be liable to the same condemnation.
There was also another way of celebrating Easter with the
Jews, b}- a false calculation making it to fall before the ver
nal equinox, and so many times bringing two Easters into
the same year. Which practice is condemned as judaical
by the author of the Constitutions,1 and any clergyman com
plying with it, by the Apostolical Canons is made liable to
deprivation also.2
Sect. 23. — 18. For wearing an indecent Habit.
18. If any clergyman wore an indecent habit, unbecoming
his order and station in the Church, he made himself liable
to canonical censure. The first Council of Mascon forbids3
clergymen to wear arms, or a soldier's coat, or any garments
or shoes not becoming their profession, after the manner of
seculars or laymen. And whoever offended in this kind,
was to be confined for thirty days in prison, and fed only
with bread and water, for his transgression. But this was a
rule only for common and ordinary cases, not for cases of
great exigency, or times of persecution. Therefore when
the famous Eusebius of Samosata went about the world in a
soldier's habit,* as the historians relate, to ordain presbyters
and deaeons in the heat of the Arian persecution ; though
this was against the letter of another law, which forbad any
1 Constit. lib. v. cap. 17. s Canon. Apost. v. al. 8.
" Con. Matiscon. i. can. 5. Ut nullns clericus sagum aut vestimenta aut
calceamenta secularia, nisi quod religionem deceat, induere praasumat.
Quod si post hanc definitionem clericus aut cum indecenti veste, aut cum
armis inventus fuerit, a seniore ita coerceatur, ut triginta dierum inclusione
detentus, aqua tantum et modjco pane diebus singulis sustentetur.
* Vid. Theodorit. lib. iv. cap. 13.
VOL. VI. 2 L

514 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
bishop to ordain in another man's diocese ; yet he was never
accused by any good Catholic for transgressing either law
because the necessity of the thing justified the fact; and
these rules, made for common order and decency, were in
this case superseded by a rule of superior obligation For
the preservation of the faith and ministry was of much more
weight and concern to the Church at such a juncture, than
the wearing of an habit ; and it was no fault in him to wear
a soldier's coat in such an exigency, to preserve the Church,
and pass undiscerned, though it would have been a great
violation of the rules of order and decency in other cases.
But this only by the way : I now pass on to the remaining
laws of discipline, which concerned the clergy.
Sect. 24.— 19. For keeping Hawks or Hounds, and following any unlaw
ful Diversions.
19. The same rules of the Church, which obliged clergy
men to avoid secular employments, may with good reason
be construed also a prohibition of secular diversions, such
as hunting, and hawking, and horse-racing, and gaming at
dice, and acting of plays and farces, and frequenting the
games and sights of the circus and theatre. All these may
be comprehended in the general prohibition of secular
things : but there are some canons, which more expressly
forbid them to the clergy under pain of canonical censure.
" Bishops, presbyters, or deacons shall not keep dogs or
hawks for hunting," says the Council of Agde.1 " And if
anyone is detected in this intention, if he be a bishop, he shall
be suspended three months from communion; if a presbyter,
two months ; if a deacon, he shall wholly cease from his
office and communion." The Council of Eliberis has a

1 Con. Agathen. can. Iv. Episcopis, presbyteris, diaconibus canes ad
venandum, aut accipitres habere non liceat. Quod si quis talium persona-
rum in hac voluntate detectus fuerit, si episcopus est, tribus mensibus se
suspendat a communione: presbyter duobus mensibus se abstineat; dia
conus vero ab omni officio vel communione cessabit. Vid. Con. Matiscon.ii.
can. 13. Con. Mogunt. cap. xiv.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 515
general canon forbidding laymen to play at dice or tables,
under the penalty of suspension from communion for a
whole year.1 And that must be supposed with greater force
to affect the clergy. Other canons under Charles the great
expressly name the clergy,2 and refer to the ancient rule of
the Church for prohibition. And the Council of Trullo3
forbids dice both to the clergy and laity, under the penalty
of deprivation to the one, and excommunication to the
other. The same Council forbids clergymen to act farces
as mimics in the theatre,* or to bait or hunt wild blasts with
dogs, or to dance upon the stage, under the like penalty of
deprivation. The Council of Leodicea forbids them to be
present as spectators at any stage-plays.5 And the Council
of Carthage gives a good reason,6 why neither they nor
their children ought either to exhibit, or frequent such
plays; because they were prohibited to laymen for the
blasphemy of those wicked wretches, that were concerned
in them. They thought it intolerable, that any of the clergy
should enourage those things by their presence, which a
layman could not see with innocence, nor be a spectator
of without a censure.
Sect. 25. — 20. For suspicious Cohabitation with strange Women.
20. The most ancient laws of the Church did not
absolutely impose celibacy upon the clergy, nor universally
restrain them from the conjugal state and married life, as
has been shewn more at large in a former book.7 But
there were two things in the conversation of the clergy, re
specting women, which they very much disallowed and cen
sured. One was the suspicious and scandalous cohabitation
of some vain and indiscreet men with strange women, who
were none of their kindred. The freedom, which these used,

1 Con. Eliber. can. lxxix. s Con. Mogunt. cap. xiv. Canon.
Apost. xiii. a Con. Trull, can. 1. * Ibid. can. li.
5 Con. Laodic. can. liv. 6 Con. Carth. iii. can. 11. Ut fllii
sacerdotum vel clericorum spectacula secularia non exhibeant, sed nee spec-
tent, quoniam a spectaculo et omnes laici prohibeantur. Semper enim
Christianis omnibus hoc interdictum est, ut ubi blasphemi sunt, non acce'dant.
* Book iv. chap. v. sect. 5, &c.
2 L 2

516 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
obliged the Church not only to forbid the clergy to cohabit
with such, as they then termed foreigners and strangers,
^wdo-aKToi, in oppositionto a mother, a sister, or an aunt,
of whom for the nearness of blood there could be no reason
able suspicion ; but also induced her to inforce this rule
with the utmost severity of discipline upon delinquents.
Cyprian1 commends Pomponius for excommunicating a dea
con, who had been found guilty in this kind. And among
other reasons alleged by the Council of Antioch for depos
ing Paulus Samosatensis from his bishopric, this is one, that
he had always seme of these Suvho-ukxcu, or strange women
to attend him, and allowed his presbyters and deacons to
have the like,2 that they might not accuse him. The se
cond Council of Aries excommunicates every clergyman
above the order of deacons,3 that retains any woman as a
companion, except it be a grandmother, or mother, or sister,
or daughter, or niece, or a wife after her conversion. And
the Council of Lerida orders them to be suspended from
their office,* till they amend their fault, after a first or second
admonition.

Sect. 26. — 21. For marrying after Ordination.
21. The other thing that was generally disliked, was
the clergy's marrying a second time, after ordination. They
did not, as I said, reject married men from orders, nor oblige
them to live separate from their wives after ordination: nay
if a deacon protested before ordination, that he could not
continue in an unmarried state, he might marry afterwards,6
and not forfeit his office, by a decree of the Council of
Ancyra. But other Canons forbid presbyters and bishops
to marry after ordination, whether they were married or
unmarried before, and this under pain of deprivation. " If
a presbyter marries a wife (that is, after he is ordained pres-

1 Cypr. Ep.lxii. al. 4. ad Pompon. * Euseb. lib. vii. cap. 30.
8 Con. Arelat. ii. can. 3. Si quis de clericis a. gradu diaconatQs, in solatio
suo mulierein, prater aviam, matrem, sororem, filiam, neptem, vel uxorem1
secum conversam, habere praesumpserit, alienus a communione habeatur.
* Con. Ilerden. can. xv. * Con. Aneyr. can. x.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 517
byter, for it regards not his being married before) let him
be removed from his order," says the Council of Neocaasarea.1
The Council of Eliberis and some others in the Latin
Church were more rigorous toward the married clergy,2 and
began not only to forbid them to marry after ordination, but
to oblige them to relinquish those wives they had married
before. But as this was an encroachment upon the primi
tive rule, and never received in the Greek ChuTch, it is not
to be reckoned among the standing rules of discipline that
concerned the whole Church.
Sect.S7. — 22. For retaining an adulterous Wife.
22. Yet there was one case, in which the clergy were
obliged to put away their wives, which was the case of
adultery. " If the wife of a layman," says the Council of
Neocsesarea,3 "is convicted of adultery, such a one shall
never attain to the ministry of the clergy. If she commits
adultery after his ordination, he must put her away, or quit
his ministry, if he retains her." The Council of Eliberis*
goes a little further, and says, " If a' clergyman's wife com
mits adultery, and the husband knows it, and does not im
mediately put her away, he shall not be admitted to com
munion even at his last hour; lest they, who should be an
example of good conversation, should seem to teach others
the way to sin." Sect. 28. — 23. For Non-residence.
23. There were some laws also relating to the residence
of the clergy, which was strictly enjoined, with a denuncia
tion of canonical censures to the transgressors. The

1 Con. Neocaasar, can. i. s Con. Eliber. can. xxxiii. Vid.
Con. Agathen. can. ix. Arausican.i. can. xxiii. Carthag. v. can. 3. Matis-
con. i. can. 11. s Con. Neocsesar, can. viii.
4 Con. Eliber. can. lxv, Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit moechata, et sciateam
maritus suus mcechari, et eam non statiin projecerit, nee in fine aecipiat
communionem: ne ab his, qui exemplum bona conversations esse debent,
videantur magisteria scelerum procedere.

518 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVU.
several laws requiring residence have been noted in another
place:1 here I shall only mention such of them, as specify
the punishments that were to be inflicted on offenders in this
kind. Among these that Canon of the Council of Agde is
most remarkable,2 which decrees, that a presbyter or deacon,
who was absent from his Church three weeks, should be
three years suspended from the communion. And by the
laws of Justinian3 every bishop absenting from his Church
beyond a certain term, and that upon very weighty affairs,
and great necessity, or the will of his prince, is ordered to
be removed from the college of bishops, as a man unworthy
of his station. And the better to guard against this offence,
as no clergyman was allowed to travel without the licence
and commendatory letters of his bishop ; so neither might
a bishop travel or appear at court without the licence and
approbation of his metropolitan. This was expressly provi
ded by the same laws of Justinian,* and before him by the
third Council of Carthage, which orders,8 that no bishop
shall go beyond sea without consulting his primate, or
chief bishop of the province, and taking his Formatce, or
letters of commendation. And before this the Council of
Antioch made an order,6 that no bishop or presbyter, or any
other belonging to the Church, should go to court upon any
occasion to address the prince, without the consent and let
ters of the provincial bishops, and especially the metropo
litan, under the penalty of being cast out of communion, and
losing his honour and dignity in the Church. And to this
agree the rules and decrees of Pope Hilary7 and Gregory
the Great,8 made in conformity to the ancient rules of disci
pline in the Church.

¦ Book vi. chap.iv. sect. 7. * Con. Agathen. can. Ixiv.
Justin. Novel, vi. cap. 2. * Ibid. cap. 3. 6 Con. Carth. iii. can. 28. Ut
episcopi trans mare non proficiscantur, nisi consulto prima? sedis episcopo,
sive cujuscunque provincial primate, ut ab episcopo pracipue possint sumere
formatam sive commendationem. « Con. Antioch. can. xi.
' Hilar. Ep. viii. ad Episcopos Gallite. • Gregor. lib. vii. ep. 8.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 519

Sect. 29. — 24. For attempting to hold Preferment in two Dioceses.
24. The clergy were further obliged to confine them
selves to one Church : that is, as I have formerly had occa
sion to explain it, one diocese or diocesan Church, under
the jurisdiction of one bishop ; and not to seek, or attempt
to hold preferment under two bishops in two such distinct
Churches, or different jurisdictions. In this sense pluralities
were forbidden under the penalty of deprivation. The
Council of Chalcedon is very express to this purpose :x it
shall not be lawful for any clergyman to have his name in
the Church-roll or catalogue of two cities at the same time,
that is, in the Church where he was first ordained, and any
other, to which he flies out of ambition as to a greater
Church ; but all such shall be returned to their own Church,
where they were first ordained, and only minister there.
But if any is regularly removed from one Church to another,
he shall notpartake of the revenues of the former Church, or
of any oratory, hospital or alms-house belonging to it. And
such as shall presume, after this definition of 'this great and
oecumenical Council, to transgress in this matter, are con
demned to be degraded by the holy synod.
Sect. 30.— 25. For needless frequenting of public Inns and Taverns.
25. The Canons had also a great respect to the external
and public behaviour of the clergy ; obliging them to walk
circumspectly, and abstain from things of ill fame, though
otherwise innocent and indifferent in themselves ; that they
might cut off all occasions of obloquy, by avoiding all sus
picious actions and all appearances of evil. In regard to
which they not only censured them for rioting and drunken
ness, which were vices not to be tolerated even in laymen,
but forbad them so much as to eat or appear in a public inn
or tavern, except they were upon a journey or some such
necessary occasion required them to do it, under pain of
1 Con. Chalccd. can. x.

520 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
ecclesiastical censure. The Council of Laodicea1 and the
third Council of Carthage2 forbid it universally to all orders
of the clergy; and the Apostolical Canons more expressly,*
with a denunciation of censure, viz. an 'Afopiafiog, excommu
nication or suspension from their office, to any that should
be found in a tavern, except they were upon a journey, and
the necessity of their affairs required it.
Sect. 31. — 26. For conversing familiarly with Jews, Heretics or Gentile
Philosophers.
20. For the same reason the Canons prohibited them con
versing familiarly with Jews, Heretics and Heathens, espe
cially the gentile philosophers, because of the scandal
attending such communication .. The laws forbidding all
communication with Jews and Heretics have been mentioned
upon another occasion :* I shall here only add that remark
able story,* which Sozomen tells of Theodotus, bishop of
Laodicea in Syria, how he excommunicated the two Apol-
linarii, father and son, because they went to hear Epipha
nius, the sophist, speak his hymn in the praise of Bacchus ;
which was a thing so disagreeable to their character, the one
being a presbyter, the other a deacon in the Christian
Church. Sect. 32. — 27. For using over rigorous Severity towards Lapsers.
27. As clergymen were obliged to shew a just severity
to impenitent sinners, by putting the laws of discipline duly
in execution against them : so on the other hand an over
rigorous severity and stiffness in refusing to receive and
reconcile penitent lapsers, after they had made canonical
satisfaction, was a great offence, and such a manifest abuse
of the ministerial power, as the Church thought fit to correct
with some sharpness in her clergy. If any bishop, presbyter,

1 Con. Laodic. can. xxiv. * Con. Carth. iii. can. 27.
3 Canon. Apost. liii. al. 54. * Book xvi. chap. vi. sect. 3 et 10.
s Sozom. lib. vi. cap. 25.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 521
or deacon, say the Apostolical Canons, receives not one1
that turns from sin, but casts him out, let him be deposed :
because he grieves Christ, who said, " there is joy in heaven
over one sinner that repenteth." This was not the true ex
ercise of discipline, but imperiousness and humour, and a
mere domineering over God's heritage by an exorbitant
stretch of the ministerial power. It was the very thing
which the Novatian heretics contended for, and what the
Church always opposed and condemned in them: and, there
fore, when any of her own clergy assumed to themselves this
extravagant power, she justly esteemed them infected with
this Novatian principle of cruelty, and as such made them
liable to the sentence of deprivation,
Sect. 33.-28. For want of Charity to indigent Clerks.
28. There was another sort of cruelty, which the Church
also much resented in any of her clergy ; which was want
of charity to any that were indigent and distressed in their
own order. As charity obliges men to do good to all, as
they have opportunity, but more especially to those, who are
of the household of faith : so clergymen were more espe
cially obliged to assist those, who were joined with them in
the same ministry, and united more closely by a stricter
bond of fraternity in the same occupation and employment.
Therefore the Apostolical Canons censure this as a great
transgression in tfiese very sharp terms :2 " if any bishop or
presbyter refuse to give necessaries to any clergyman, that
is in want, let him be cast out of communion: and if he
persist, let him be deposed, as a murderer of his brother."
Sect. 34. — 29. Forjudging in Cases of Blood.
29. It was thought also some sort of cruelty, at least a
very improper and unbecoming thing for any clergyman to
be concerned in judging or giving sentence in cases of
blood. The laws allowed them to be chosen arbitrators of

1 Canon. Apost. Iii. 2 Canon Apost. lix.

522

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.

men's differences in civil causes : but they had no power at
all in criminal causes, except such as were purely ecclesias
tical ; and least of all in such criminal causes where life and
death was concerned. Therefore there are many Canons
forbidding this under the penalty of the highest censure of
deprivation. The Council of Tarragone universally forbids
the clergy to sit judges in any civil criminal causes.1 The
Council of Auxerre more particularly enjoins presbyters not
to sit in judgment,2 when any man is to be condemned to die:
And, in another Canon,3 forbids both presbyters and deacons
to stand at the Trepalium, where criminals were put to the
rack and examined by torture. The fourth Council of
Toledo allows not priests to sit judges in cases of treason,*
even at the command of the prince, except the prince pro
mised beforehand upon oath, that he would pardon the of
fence, and remit the punishment. If they did otherwise,
they were to be held guilty of bloodshed before Christ, and
to lose their order and degree in the Church. The eleventh
Council of Toledo goes a little further,6 not only excluding
such from the honour of their order and station, but from all
communion during their whole lives, which they are only to
be allowed at the point of death.
Sect. 36.— Bishops might be suspended or degraded for giving Ordinations
contrary to the Canons.
These were the chief of those rules of ancient discipline,
which concerned the clergy in general : beside which there
were some, which had a more peculiar respect to the persons

1 Con. Tarracon. can. iv. Habeant licentiam judicandi, exceptis crimi-
nalibus negotiis. s Con. Antissiodor. can. xxxiv. Non licet pres
bytero in illo judicio sedere, unde homo ad mortem tradatur. 8 Ibid.
can; xxxiii. Non licet presbytero, nee diacono, ad Trepalium, ubi rei tor-
quentur, stare. Con. Matiscon. ii. can. xix. * Con. Tolet. iv.
can. 30. Ibi consentiant regibus fieri judices, ubi jurejurando, supplicii iu-
dulgentia promittitur ; non ubi discriminis (al. sanguinis) sententia prspara-
tur. Sit quis ergo sacerdotum discussor in alienis periculis extiterit, sitreus
effusi sanguinis apud Christum, et apud ecclesiam perdat propriumgradum.
s Con. Tolet. xi. can. 6. His, a quibus Domini sacramenta tractanda sunt,
judicium sanguinis agitare non licet, &c.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 523
of each particular order. Bishops might be suspended or
degraded for several ofi'ences committed against the rules of
their office and duty peculiar to their function. As first, for
wilful transgression of the known laws of ordination. If
any bishops pretended to ordain a man into a full see, where
another was regularly ordained before him ; or if two or
three bishops ordained a bishop clancularly without the eon-
sent of the rest of the provincial bishops and the metropo
litan ; not only the bishop so ordained was to be deposed,
but the bishops who presumed to give him such an ordina
tion :l which was the case of Trophimus and those two
other obscure bishops who ordained Novatian ; for which
offence, as Cyprian and Cornelius often tell us, they were
degraded, and reduced to lay-communion. If any bishop
ordained those, that were baptized by heretics, or re-baptized
by them, he was liable to be deposed for his transgression.2
If a bishop for favour ordained any of his own unworthy
kindred, by a rule of the Apostolical Canons,3 he was liable
to be suspended. If a bishop ordained any in another man's
diocese, by a rule of the same Apostolical Canons,* he was
liable to :be deposed, as well as the persons so ordained
by him. All these things have been more fully shewn in
the third section of this chapter, to which the reader may
have recourse. To which I only add, that if a bishop or
dained a man, who had done public penance in the Church,
he himself was to be deprived of the power of ordination.5
Sect. 36. — Also for neglecting to put the Laws of Discipline in Exe
cution.
2. If bishops neglected to put the laws of discipline in
execution, which was a peculiar act belonging to their
office, they were liable to be deposed for such neglect and
contempt of discipline, as well as those, whom they ought
to have punished with ecclesiastical censure. This is evi-

1 Vid. Con. Arausican. i. can. 21. 2 Vid. Felic. iii. ep. i. can. 5.
3 Canon. Apost. lxxvi. * Ibid. xxxv. s Vid. Con,
Carthag. iv. can. 68.

524 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
dentfrom thecase putbyPope Felix of some, who had been
baptized or re-baptized by heretics, and were afterward irre
gularly ordained in the Church : not only they, who ordained
them, were liable to be deposed, but also those bishops, who
knew them to be so ordained, and did not remove them from
their office, by putting the laws of discipline in execution
against them. So again if a presbyter or deacon assumed
to themselves any office without the authority of the bishop
not belonging to them, and the bishop connived at their
usurpation,2 he himself was liable to canonical censure for
his tameness in not correcting them for their presump
tion. Sect. 37.— For dividing their Diocese, and erecting new Bishoprics without
Leave: Or extending their Claims to other Men's Rights beyond their
own Limits and Jurisdictions.
3. Bishops rendered themselves obnoxious to canonical
censure, if they made any attempts to alter the boundaries
or districts of the Church, settled by ancient law and cus
tom, without the advice and consent of a provincial synod.
Dioceses might be divided upon just reasons, and new ones
be erected out of them : either when they were too large for
one bishop's care: which made St. Austin divide the diocese
of Hippo, and take the new bishopric of Fussala out of it:
or else when the prince thought fit to advance some emi
nent town or village into a city ; then that city might be
made a new bishopric by the consent of a provincial coun
cil. But if any one ambitiously got himself ordained bishop
of a village, where there never had been any bishop before.
or as ambitiously solicited the prince to turn a village into
a city, that he might be made the bishop of it : in such cases
the Church thought fit to correct the lofty thoughts of as
piring men, and defeat their attempts, by denying them
those honours they had taken such indirect methods to ob
tain, and putting them under the censure of a deprivation.

1 Felic, iii. Ep. i. can. 5. * Vid. Gelasii Epist. ix. ad Episc.
Lucaniae. cap. viii.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 525
There are many Canons and rules of discipline, which forbid
this practice : but the rule made in one of the Councils of
Toledo is most remarkable, being an inference made upon a
special case from all the ancient Canons, (forbidding bishops
to be ordained in villages,) which are there recited. King
Wamba by an imperious mandate had enjoined some bishops
to ordain other bishops in several villages and monasteries,
lying in the suburbs of Toledo and other places : against
which innovating attempt and usurpation the Council first
cites the ancient Canons, and then concludes with a new de
cree in these words :l " if any one shall offer to go against
the prescription of these Canons, in procuring himself to be
made a bishop in those places, where there never was any
bishop before, let him be Anathema in the sight of God
Almighty. And let moreover both the ordainer and the or
dained lose the degree of their order, because they attempt
not only to infringe the decrees of the ancient fathers, but
the institutions of the Apostles." The Council of Chalce
don made a like decree against any,2 that should presume to
address the higher powers to get a province divided into
two, in order to erect a new metropolis in it. This, they
say, was against the rule of the Church, and therefore they
denounce the deprivation against any one, that should at
tempt it. Sect. 38. — For not attending provincial Councils.
4. Bishops were obliged to attend provincial Councils ;
and if they refused or neglected to do this without a reason
able cause, they were liable to suspension. To this purpose
there is a decree in the second Council of Aries :3 if any one
neglects to be present, or leaves the assembly of his

1 Con. Tolet. xii. can. 4. Si quis contra heec canonum interdicta venire
conatus fuerit, ut in locis illis se episcopum eligat fieri, ubi episcopus nun
quam fuit, anathema sit in conspectu Dei Omnipotentis. Et insuper tam
ordinator, quam ordiuatus, gradum sui ordinis perdat : quia non solum anti-
quorum patrem decreta, sed et apostolica ausus est convellere instituta.
3 Con. Chalced. can. xii. s Con. Areletan. ii. can. 19- Si quis
autem adesse neglexerit, aut coetum fratrum, antequim dissolvatur concilium,

526 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
brethren, before the Council be ended, he shall be excluded
from the communion of his brethren, and not be received
again, till he is absolved by the following synod. The
same decree is repeated by the Council of Tarragone,1 and
said to be conformable to the rules of the fathers, that if any
bishop contemptuously omit to come to synod, when he is
called by his metropolitan, unless he be under some great
bodily infirmity, he shall be deprived of the communion of
all the bishops to the sitting of the next Council; which the
African synods call,2 being content with the communion of
his own Church only.
Sect. 39.— For oppressing the People with unjust Exactions.
5. If any bishop oppressed his people, or any part of
them, with hard usage, unjust demands, or unreasonable
exactions ; it was peculiarly provided in this case by the
laws of the African Church, that he should be amerced or
punished with the loss of that part of his diocese or people,
who had reason to complain of such oppression. I have
already noted this in the last chapter, sect. 4, out of one of St.
Austin's Epistles,3 where he neatly defends this way of pro
ceeding with bishops, when their offences were neither so
great, as to deserve deprivation ; nor so small, as to be per
fectly overlooked, or let wholly pass without a censure.
Sect. 40. — For harbouring such as fled from another Diocese without
Leave.
6. Finally whereas it was provided by the Canons, that
no bishop should harbour or encourage any clerk flying
from his own diocese, nor any monk deserting his own mo
nastery : some Councils took care to prevent this abuse, not

crediderit deserendum, alienum se a fratrum communione cognoscat, nee
eum recipiliceat, nisi iu sequenti synodo fuerit absolutus.
1 Con. Tarracon. can. vi. Si quis episcoporum commonitus ametropoli-
tano, ad synotlum, nulla gravi intercedente necessitate corporali, venire con
tempserit, sicut statuta patrum censuerunt, usque ad futurum concilium cunc-
torum episcoporum charitatis communione privetur. 2 Con.
Carthag. v. can. 10. et Cod. Afric. can. lxxvii. 3 Aug. Ep. eclxi.

CHAP. V.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 527
only by degrading the deserting clerk, but by inflicting
canonical punishment upon the bishop, that so countenanced
or received him. The Council of Antioch leaves it in general
to the synod, to punish such an offending bishop.1 The
Apostolical Canons are more particular,2 that he shall be
suspended from his office, as a master of disorder. But in
Afric they had a more peculiar sort of punishment for such
a bishop, which was, that he should communicate with no
other bishop of the province, but be content with the com
munion of his own Church:3 which, as has been observed,
was a moderate punishment for offences of a lower rate,
which neither deserved to be punished with deprivation, nor
yet escape wholly unpunished as no offences.
Sect. 41 .—Chorepiscopi might be censured for acting beyond their Com
mission.
Next to the bishop there were a sort of ecclesiastical per
sons, whom the ancient Church called Chorepiscopi, or
country-bishops, because they officiated in certain episco
pal duties under the city bishop in country districts.
These acted by a limited and dependent power, but many
times were inclined to assume a power to themselves be
yond their, commission. Therefore the Church was obliged
to make certain laws and rules to restrain and correct their
usurpations. These might ordain the inferior clergy, sub
deacons, readers, and exorcists by a general commission,
but not presbyters or deacons without a special licence : yet
sometimes they would take upon them to do that also with
out consulting the city-bishop; for which offence they
were liable by the Canons to lose their office and be de
graded.* Sect. 42. — And Presbyters for usurping upon the Episcopal Office.
The like may be observed of presbyters, who were assist-
1 Con. Antioch. can. iii. 2 Canon. Apost. xvi.
8 Con. Carth. v. can. 13. Episcopus qui hoc fecerit, a caiterorum communi
one sejunctus, suas tantum plebis communione contentus sit.
* Vid Con. Antioch. can. x.

528 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII.
ants to bishops in performing their office, but with certain
limitations, that they should not meddle with such parts of
it, as they reserved absolutely to themselves ; such as ordi
nation and consecration of chrism, for the use of confirming,
and the consecration of churches and altars. And if presby
ters at any time exceeded the limits of their commission and
order, by assuming the exercise and power of these things
to themselves, by the laws of the Church they were liable
to be divested of their ordinary power, which otherwise
they might have enjoyed, and made subjectto the penalty
of a total deprivation. Thus when Eutychianus and
Musaeus, who were no bishops, had ordained several clerks,
the Council of Sardica ordered,1 that for this presumption
they should be deprived of their orders, and entirely redu
ced to the communion of laymen. And in the first Council
of Braga a decree was made,3 prohibiting presbyters either
to consecrate the chrism, or churches, or altars, under pain
of deposition from their office : because the ancient Canons
always forbid it.
Sect. 43. — And Deacons for assuming Offices and Privileges above their
Order and Station.
Deacons likewise were confined to certain offices and
stations appropriated to their order; above which if they
presumed ambitiously to aspire and thrust themselves into
the presbyter's duty, or any ways insult them : they also in
curred the highest censures. The Council of Nice takes3
notice of some such usurpations and abuses committed by
deacons ; that in some places the deacons took upon them
to distribute the sacrament to presbyters ; and to receive it
before bishops themselves ; and to sit in the midst of the
presbyters : which being contrary both to rule and custom,
it is ordered that such assuming deacons should be suspen
ded, or cease from their ministry, as the word " nziravg $w

1 Con. Sardic. can. xx. e Con. Bracaren. i. can. 37. Si quis
presbyter post hoc interdictum ausus fuerit chrisma benedicere, aut ecclesiam
aut altare consecrare, a suo officio deponatur. Nam et antiqui canones hoc
vetuerunt. s Con. Nie. can. xviii.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 529
Tt]g Siattovlag" seem rather to signify. The second Council
of Aries has a Canon to the same purpose,1 that deacons
shall not sit in the secretarium or vestry among the pres
byters ; nor presume to deliver the body of Christ, when a
presbyter is present. If they do, they shall cease to offici
ate any longer as deacons.
Thus every order among the clergy had their particular
offices assigned them; and not only neglects and omissions
of their duty, but intermeddling with offices, that did not be
long to them, and assuming powers, that were foreign to
their order, was a sufficient cause of suspension or depriva
tion. And so I have done with what relates more pecu
liarly to the discipline of the Clergy.
1 Con. Arelatan.ii. can. 15. In secretario diaconos inter presbyteros
sedere non liceat: vel corpus Christi, prasente presbytero, tradere non-
prssumant. Quod si feeerint, ab officio diaconatus abscedant.

VOL. VI. 2 M

530 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.

BOOK XVIII.
OF THE SEVERAL ORDERS OF PENITENTS, AND
THE METHOD OF DOING PUBLIC PENANCE IN
THE CHURCH BY GOING THROUGH THE SEVE
RAL STAGES OF REPENTANCE.

CHAP. I.
Of the several Orders of Penitents in the Church.
Sbct. 1. — Penitents divided into four Orders or Classes.
We have hitherto considered the discipline of the Church,
as exercised upon obstinate and notorious criminals, in
order to bring them to repentance : we are now to examine
it again in its progress, as exercised upon penitents, who
submitted to the rules of discipline, and see how they were
treated in the performance of their penance, from the time
of their excommunication to the time of their admission
into the Church again. The performance of penance
anciently was a matter of considerable length and time, to
examine men's behaviour and sincerity, and make them give
just testimony and evidence of real sorrow and hearty ab
horrence of their sins, to satisfy the Church, that they were
sincere converts, by submitting to go through a long
course of penance, according as the wisdom of the Church

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 531
thought fit to impose it upon them. And upon this account
the Church was used to divide her penitents into four distinct
ranks or classes of different degrees, called by the Greeks,
npoaKAaiovTeg, 'AicpowjUEVOt, cY7ro7rtVrovra;,and Suviscfyilvot ;
and by the Latins, Flentes, Audientes, Substrati, and Con-
sislentes; that is, the mourners or weepers, the hearers, the
substrators, and the co-standers ; the meaning of which
names and distinctions shall be explained by and by. Some
add to these a fifth order, but without any just ground or
reason for it. Bellarmin says,1 there was a fifth place, of
such penitents as bad fully completed their penance, and
only waited for the time of reconciliation. And the place
of these penitents, he says, was called Mfewo-ig, or the com
pletion. Our learned Dr. Cave also slides unwarily into
the same mistake,2 making five orders of penitents, whereof
the fifth and last, he says, were called Communicantes,
and were admitted to the participation of the holy sacra
ment. But it is most certain, there never was any such
order of penitents, under the name of communicants, or
partakers of the holy sacrament, acknowledged in the
Church. For communicants, absolutely so called, as de
noting partakers of the eucharist, are every where distin
guished from the penitents, and go by other names, IIiTot,
TIXekh, &c. the faithful, and perfect : that is, persons not
under discipline and public penance, which is an imperfect
state of communion, but in the perfect, peaceable, and full
communion of the Church: none of which ever go by the
name of penitents, in any ancient writer. Some penitents
indeed are said to communicate imperfectly with the Church
in some one particular thing ; as the fourth order of peni
tents, called co-standers, are said often to communicate in
prayers without the oblation or eucharist : but these, as
they did not partake of the eucharist, so neither were they
ever reputed perfect communicants in the Church, till they
were restored to the To TlXeiov, the complete communion

1 Bellarm. de Posniten. lib. i. cap. 22. tom. iii. p. 959. * Cave,
Primi Christ, lib. i. cap. viii. p. 217.
2 m 2

532 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
of the faithful at the altar. So that there is no manner of
ground for this fifth order of penitents, theinvention of which
is entirely owing to a mistake, and implies a contradiction.
Sect. 2. — Thefirst Original of this Distinction.
As to the other four orders of penitents, it is generally
agreed among learned men, that the Church observed such
a distinction ; but how early, is not indisputably certain.
Cardinal Bona thinks,1 the distinction of penitential classes
was first made about the time of the Novatian schism, that
is, about the middle of the third century. And Suicerus,9
speaking of the order of penitents, called hearers, says,
there is no mention made of it before the time of Novatus;
though otherwise a place for hearing the Scriptures and
sermon was allowed in the Church for heathens, Jews, he
retics, schismatics, and the second rank of the catechumens,
who upon that account were commonly termed hearers, long
before the name was given to any sort of penitents as a dis
tinct order. Sect. 3. — Of the Flentes or Mournerf.
But in the third and fourth century, we commonly find
the penitents distinguished into four orders; the first of
which were the Flentes or mourners, who were rather can
didates of penance, than penitents strictly speaking. Their
station was in the church-porch, where they lay prostrate,
begging the prayers of the faithful as they went in, and de
siring to be admitted to do public penance in the church.
This is what Tertullian means, when he says,3 they were
used to fall down at the presbyter's feet, and kneel to the
friends of God, and intreat all the brethren to recommend
their petition, and intercede with heaven for them. And so
the historian represents the practice of Ecebolius,* the so-
1 Bona, de Rebus Liturgie. lib. i. cap. 17. n. 3. * Suicer. Thesaur.
Eceles. torn. i.p. 171. Voce'AKpoflffic. Vid. Constitut. Apost. lib. ii. cap. 16.
8 Tertul. de Poenitent.cap. ix. Presbyteris advolvi, charis Dei adgeniculari,
omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis sua? injungere. Vid. lib. de Pu- ';
dicit. cap. xiii. * Socrat. lib. iii. cap. IS.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 533
phist, who having apostatized under Julian, desired to make
his recantation, and do. penance under Jovian : the first step
toward which was, that he cast himself prostrate to the
earth before the gate of the church, crying out, Calcate me
insipidum salem, tread me under foot as salt without savour.
Some Canons pass over this act as only a preliminary to re
pentance:1 but Gregory Thaumaturgus and St. Basil, ex
pressly mention it in their Canons. Gregory says,2 theplace
of the mourners is without the gate of the church, where the
sinner must stand, and beg the prayers of the faithful, as
they enter in. And St. Basil thus describes the four stations
of penitents: the first year they are to weep before the gate
of the church ;3 the second year, to be admitted to hearing ;
the third year, to genuflexion, or repentance properly so
called; and the fourth year, to stand with the faithful at
prayers without partaking of the oblation. And in this sense
we may understand that passage in St. Ambrose,* where
speaking to one that had corrupted a virgin, he tells him,
his only method now was to implore the help of the saints
(meaning, not saints in heaven, but saints on earth in the
Church) and to cast himself at the feet of the elect : which
seems plainly to allude to this custom. In like manner Eu
sebius,5 describing the behaviour of Natalis, the confessor,
upon his return to the Church, from the Theodosian heretics,
who had allured him by great rewards to become bishop of
their party, says, he came in sackcloth and ashes, and with
tears cast himself at the feet of Zephyrinus, then bishop of
Rome ; and notonly laid himself under the feet of the. clergy,
but the laity also; endeavouring to move the merciful
Church of the merciful Christ to compassion with his
tears, and by shewing them the marks of the stripes,
which he had endured for the confession of Christ.
Where falling at the feet of the laity, as well as
the clergy, can hardly refer to any thing else beside
this preparatory introduction to penance, which the mour-

1 Con. Nie. can. xi. et xii. Con. Ancyr. can. 4, 6, 9. 2 Greg.
Thaumaturg. can. xi. 8 Basil, can. xxii. Vid. can. 56, 67,
58, 59, 64, 68, 75, ibid. * Ambros. ad Virgin. Lapsam, cap.
¦»iii. Sanctorum petas auxilium, jaceas sub pedibus electorum.
4 Euseb. lib. v. cap. 26.

534 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
ners used in the church-porch, when they cast themselves
before the people, to beg their prayers, and obtain admis
sion into the first apartment of the church.
Sect. 4.— Of the Audientes or Hearers.
When their petition was thus accepted, they were said to
be admitted to penance, that is, to have liberty to pass
through the several stages of discipline, which the Church
appointed for the probation and trial of such as pretended
real sorrow for any notorious offence, and the scandal given
to the Church by the commission of it. This is the true
meaning of those common phrases, which so often occur in
the writings of the Ancients, " Pcenitentiam dare," and
" Pcenitentiam accipere" giving and receiving penance;
that is, granting or accepting the conditions of public pe
nance in the church. Now when men were admitted to this
state, they were termed Audientes, or hearers, which was
the second order of penitents ; or, if we please, the first of
those that had any privilege to enter the church. These
were allowed to stay and hear the Scriptures read, and the
sermon preached ; but were obliged to depart, before any of
the common prayers began, with the rest of those, catechu
mens and others, who went by the general name of hearers
only. There is frequent mention made of these in the an
cient Canons,1 prescribing how long penitents were to con
tinue in this station, a year, or two, or three, according as
their offence required. Gregory Thaumaturgus particularly
assigns them their station in the Narthex,2 or lowest part of
the Church, where they stood to hear with the catechumens
of the first or second order, called hearers, and were dismiss
ed with them as soon as the sermon was ended, before any
prayers begun. St. Basil says expressly,3 they were hearers
only, and not allowed to be present at any prayers whatso
ever. Which agrees exactly with the order in the Constitu
tions,* where the deacon is appointed to make proclamation,
1 Con. Nie. can. xi. et xii. Con. Ancyr. can. 4, 6, 9.
3 Greg. Thaum. can. xi. s Basil, can. lxxv. Vid. Greg.
Nyssen. can. iii. * Constit. lib. viii. cap. 5.

CHAP. I.] , CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 535
as soon as the sermon was ended, " Ne quis audientium, ne
quis infidelium : Let none of the hearers, let none- of the un
believers be present."

Sect. 5. — Of the Kneelers or Prostrators.
And in this they were distinguished from the penitents of
the third order, who were called TowKXivovrtg and 'Y7ro7riV-
Tovrtg by the Greeks, and Genuflectentes, or Substrati, by the
Latins; that is, kneelers or prostrators, because they were
allowed to stay and join in certain prayers particularly made
for them, whilst they were kneeling upon their knees. Bel
larmin commits a strange mistake, and betrays a great deal
of ignorance in the Greek tongue, whilst he explains the
name 'YiroTriirrojmg to be the station of those, who were oc
cupied in the contemplation of heavenly things ;J taking the
word to come from "oirrofiai, video, to see or contemplate ;
whereas every one knows it comes from vTroirlirTii), to kneel,
or fall down and lie prostrate on the ground, whence they
were properly denominated kneelers or prostrators. These
were allowed to stay in the church after the hearers were
dismissed, and hear the prayers, that were offered up, parti
cularly for them by all the people, and receive imposition of
hands from the bishop, who also made a particular prayer
for them, which was styled, the imposition of hands upon
the penitents, and the bishop's benediction. The Council
of Laodicea,2 speaks of these prayers under this very title,
calling them the prayers of those, that were under penance
and imposition of hands. St. Chrysostom also mentions
them more than once,3 styling them the prayers for the pe
nitents, and the prayers full of mercy, because in them in
tercession was made to God for the penitents by the common
voice both of the minister and people. The author of the
Constitutions, has the forms of these prayers,* which I omit

1 Bellar. de Poenit. lib.i. cap. 22. tom. iii. p. 959. * Con.
Laodic can. xix. * Chrys. Horn, xviii. in 2 Cor. p. 873.
Hora.lxxvi. in Mat. p. 624. * Constit. lib. viii. cap.8<et 9.

536 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
here, because they have been recited at length in a more
proper place,1 where we give an account of the ancient li
turgy or service of the Church. The station of this sort of
penitents was within the nave or body of the Church,2 near
unto the ambon, or reading-desk, where they received the
bishop's imposition of hands and benediction. Some ca
nons style this order simply the penitents,3 by way of em
phasis, without any other distinction : because they were
the most noted, and the greatest part of penitential acts be
longed to them whilst they were in this station, of which
I shall give a more particular account in the following
chapters. Sect. 6, — Of the Consistentes, or Co-standers.
The last order of penitents were the "Sivvigdfitvoi, Consis
tentes, or co-standers, so called from their having liberty,
after the other penitents, energumensand catechumens were
dismissed, to stand with the faithful at the altar, and join in
the common prayers, and see the oblation offered ; but yet
they might neither make their own oblations, nor partake of
the eucharist with them. This the Council of Nice calls,*
communicating with the people in prayers only without the
oblation ; which for the crime of idolatry was to last for two
years, after they had been three years hearers, and seven
years prostrators before. The Council of Ancyra, often5
uses the same phrase of communicating in prayers only, and
communicating without the oblation : and in one Canon ex^
pressly styles this order of penitents,6 the ~2ivviaa}izvoi,co-stan-*
ders ; by which name they are also distinguished in the Ca
nons of Gregory Thaumaturgus,7 and frequently in the Ca
nons of St. Basil.8 In all which we may observe, that the
' Book. XIV. chap. v. sect. 10. * Gregor. Thaumaturg. can. xi.
s Con. Laodic. can. xix. * Con. Nie. can. xi. Auo stjj %<upi£ irpoa^o-
pag Koiviavfiimai rip A-aif rr\v icpoatxiiw Vid. can. xii. ibid. s Con. An-
cyr, can. iv. "Eu%jj g fiovrjg Koiviovrjaai. Can. v. ~K.oivS>vri<sd.T<iiaav xuP'C
¦xpoafyopag. It. can. 8, 16, 25. 6 Con. Ancyr. can. xxvi.
7 Greg.Thaumat. can xi. 8 Basil, can. 22, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61,
66, 75,

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 537
word communicating does not always signify partaking of
the eucharist, but communicating in prayers only without
the oblation ; which was but an imperfect sort of commu
nion ; in opposition to which, when they were admitted again
to the eucharist, they were said " iXBttv tir\ to riXuov, to
attain to perfection ;" the participation of the eucharist being
the highest state, or consummation and perfection of a Chris
tian. This is the short account of these several orders of
penitents, and their stations in the Church : but to have a
complete view of the ancient manner of performing penance,
it will be necessary to consider both the ceremony of ad
mission to this state, and the several acts of penance, which
they performed during their progress or passage through the
several stages of it ; as also the length of time, or the dura
tion and continuance of this exercise; which was often for
a course of many years, and sometimes to the hour of death,
without any remission or relaxation. The considering all
which will give us an exact and clear idea of the ancient dis
cipline, and shew us at once both the severity, and prudence,
and purity of the Church, in proceeding with sharpness
against great delinquents, as well to examine the sincerity
of their repentance, as to take off the scandal cast upon
religion, and prevent their backsliding and relapses for the
future. Of these things therefore in the following chapters.

CHAP. II.
Of the Ceremonies used in admitting Penitents to do pub
lic Penance, and the manner of performing it in the
Church.
Sect. 1.— Penitents first admitted to Penance by Imposition of Hands.
When a penitent desired to be admitted to do public pe
nance, and his petition was accepted, the first ceremony
1 Con. Ancyr. can. 4, 5, 6.

538 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII,
that was used, was to grant him penance, as the phrase was,
by imposition of hands. For this was a ceremony used al
most in all religious actions, when any person was solemnly
to be recommended to God in prayer. There were many other
impositions of hands given them daily, when they came into
the third order of penitents ; but this was previous to their
admission, or rather the form and ceremony of it, when they
were first taken in to be hearers in the church. For this
we have the plain testimony of the Council of Agde,1 which
orders, " that penitents, at the time when they desire to be
admitted to do penance, shall receive imposition of hands
from the bishop, and sackcloth to cover their heads."
Sect. 2.— And obliged to appear in Sackcloth and Ashes upon their
Head.
In which canon we may observe another rite and cus
tom of common use in this matter : which was, that peni
tents were obliged to appear in sackcloth, as an indication
and token of their great sorrow and indignation against
themselves. Other writers join sackcloth and ashes toge
ther; for so Eusebius describing the penitential mien of
Natalis the confessor, upon his return from the Theodosian
heretics to the Church says,2 he came clothed in sackcloth
and sprinkled with ashes. And St. Ambrose writing to a
virgin, that had lapsed, plainly alludes to both customs, when
he tells her,3 "she must macerate her whole body, sprinkling
it with ashes, and covering it with sackcloth." In like man
ner Tertullian, discoursing of public penance,* says, it
obliges the sinner to change both his diet and his habit, to
defile his body, and lie in sackcloth and ashes. Neither
were the greatest personages exempted from this ceremony.

1 Con. Agathen. can. xv. Pcenitentes tempore quo poenitentiam petunt
impositionem manuum et cilicium super caput a sacerdote consequantur.
9 Euseb. lib. v. cap. 28. See Con. Tolet iii. can. 12. a Am
bros. ad Virg.Lapsam, cap. viii. Totum corpus incuriii maceretur, cinere
aspersum et opertum cilicio. Vid. Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 135. 4 Ter-
ul. de Poenit. cap. ix. De ipso quoque habitu atque victu mandat, sacco
et cineri incubare, corpus sordibus obscurate.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 539
For St. Jerom1 describing the penance of Fabiola, one of the
greatest ladies in Rome, says, " she stood in sackcloth in the
order of penitents in the Lateran Church, to make public
confession of her fault in the sight of all the people of
Rome :" and they continued the use of it during their pas
sage through all the stages of repentance. For even at last
they appeared in sackcloth, when the course of their whole
penance was ended, and in this garb, as the Council of
Toledo words it,"2 were absolved, and reconciled to the altar
of God." And this is always the meaning of those expres
sions, which speak of penitents changing their garb, and
taking the mournful habit of repentance. Some think this
was always done precisely on Ash- Wednesday, or the be
ginning of Lent, which from thence was called Dies Cine-
rum, the day of sprinkling ashes, and Caput Jejunii, the
head or beginning of the fast. But this, for ought I can
find, is founded upon very uncertain tradition, and the au
thority of modern authors ; there being a perfect silence
in the more ancient writers about it. Bellarmin cites the
authority of the Council of Agde for it:3 but this is only to
be found in Gratian,* for there is no such Canon in the tomes
of the Councils. And the Roman correctors of Gratian
own as much, referring us to the Roman Peniientiale, and
Pontifical, and the Ordo Romanus for the substance of it.
And so Baluzius says,5 Burchardus has it out of the Roman
Penitentiale, which is of a much later date : neither does
the canon, as cited by Gratian, prove the thing in question,
but only describes the ceremony, that was used toward peni
tents in the beginning of Lent, whether they were then first
admitted to penance, or had been admitted before : which
very thing supposes, that penance might be imposed at
other times, as well as the first day of Lent, as the old gloss

Hieron. Ep. xxx. Epitaph. Fabiola?. Quis hoc crederet, ut saccum in-
dueret, ut errorem publice fateretur, et tots urbe spectante RomanS, ante
diem Paschre, in Basilica Laterani  staret in ordine Poenitentium?
s Con. Tolet. i. can. 2. Qui sub cilicio divino reconciiiatus est altario.
* Bellarm. de Poenitent. lib. i. cap. 22. * Grat. Dist. 1. cap. 64.
* Baluz. Not. ad Gratian. p. 464.

540 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII
upon Gratian rightly observes. The ceremony, as it is de
scribed by Gratian, seems only to be an account of the disci
pline used towards penitents in Lent, different from their
treatment at other seasons of the year. For, in Capite
Quadragesimce, on Ash-Wednesday, or the first day of Lent
all penitents, who either then were admitted to penance, or
had been admitted before, were presented to the bishop be
fore the doors of the church, clothed in sackcloth, bare
footed, and with countenances dejected to the earth, confes
sing themselves guilty both by their habit and their looks.
They were to be attended by the deans or arch-presbyters
of the parishes, and the penitential presbyters, whose office
was to inspect their conversation, and enjoin them penance
according to the measure of their faults by the degrees of
penance, that were appointed. After this they bring them
into the church, and then the bishop with all the clergy
falling prostrate on the ground, sing the seven penitential
psalms with tears for their absolution. After this the bishop
rising from prayer, gives them imposition of hands, sprinkles
them with holy water, puts ashes upon their heads, and then
covers their heads with sackcloth, declaring with sighs and
groans, that as Adam was cast out of Paradise, so they for
their sins are cast out of the Church : then he commands
the inferior ministers to expel them out of the doors of the
church ; and the clergy follow them, using this responsory,
" In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread : for dust
thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return." In the end of
Lent, on the Thursday before Easter called Caena Domini,
the deans and presbyters are to present them before the
gates of the church again. Thus far Gratian's account, which
is manifestly not a determining the time of imposing pe
nance to be the first day of Lent, but a description of the
-manner of treating all penitents in Lent, whatever time
their penance was imposed upon them. And as there are
some things in it comformable to the ancient discipline,
so there are many things in it, that plainly discover it to
have relation to a more modern practice. For there
was no use of holy water in the ancient discipline;
nor seven penitential psalms in the ancient service, but
only one penitential psalm, that is the fifty-first, com-

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 541
monly distinguished by the name of Psalmus Exomolo-
geseos, the penitential psalm, or psalm of confession. Nei
ther was Ash-Wednesday anciently the first day of Lent,
till Gregory the Great first added it to Lent, to make the'
number of fasting days completely forty, which before were
but thirty-six. Neither does it appear, that anciently the time
of imposing penance was confined to the beginning of Lent,
but penance was granted at all times, whenever the bishop
thought the sinner qualified for it: as St. Ambrose admitted
Theodosius to penance at Christmas ; and there are many
examples of the like nature. The circumstance therefore of
time must be passed over as unlimited and uncertain. Only
whenever penance was imposed, the sinner was obliged to
change his habit, and appear in a mournful dress, agreeable
to a state of repentance : which is all that can be concluded
from any of the ancient canons, which speak of the circum
stances of repentance.
Sect. 3. — And to cut off their Hair, or go veiled as another Token of
Sorrow and Mourning.
At the same time that they changed their habit, some
canons obliged penitents to cut off their hair, or shave their
heads, if they were men, as another indication of sorrow
and mourning. And women were enjoined to wear a peni
tential veil, and either to eut off their hair, or appear with it
dishevelled, and hanging loose about their shoulders; which
was another token of deep sorrow and affliction. The
Council of Agde made a peremptory order,1 that if any, who
desired to be admitted to penance, refused to cut off their
hair, they should be rejected. And the third Council of
Toledo has a like order,2 " that when any one desires penance
of the bishop, he shall first poll him, and make him change
his habit for sackcloth and ashes, and so admit him to da

1 Con. Agathen. can. xv. Si autem comas non deposuerinl, aut vestimenta
non mutaverint, abjiciantur.
' Cou. Tolet. iii. can. 12. Quieunque ab episcopo pcenitentiam postulat,
prius eum tondeat, aut in cinere et cilicio habitum mutare faciat, et sic poe
nitentiam ei tradat. Si verd mulier fuerit', non aecipiat pcenitentiam, nigi
yrius aut velata fuerit, aut mutaverit habitum.

542 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BO OK XVIII
penance." Optatus alludes to this custom, when speaking
of the rudeness of the Donatists in bringing some Catholic
bishops to do penance,1 he says that contrary to all rules they
had shaved the heads of the p'riests: they, who ought to pre
pare ears to hear their instructions, had prepared razors to sin
against them; that is, they had made them do public pe
nance in order to retain their clerical office, which ought
not to be done : for if a clergyman was to do public pe
nance, he ought first to be degraded for his offence, and do
penance only as a layman. As to women, the custom was
to put them on a penitential veil, which is expressly required
by the third Council of Toledo, appointing,2 " that no woman
should be admitted to do penance, except she was first
veiled, and had changed her habit." Whence Optatus calls
such veils, the veils of repentance;3 objecting it to the
Donatists, that they had forced the Catholic virgins, who
were innocent, to submit to their imposition of hands, and
wear upon their heads the veils of repentance. St. Ambrose
seems to intimate, that they also had their heads sometimes
shorn or shaven. For writing to a virgin, who had commit
ted fornication, he bids her cut off her hair,* which through
vain glory had given her occasion to sin. But this was no
general custom : for St. Jerom, describing the penance of
Fabiola,5 says, she did it " sparso crine, with her hair dishe
velled, the bishop and presbyters and all the people weeping
with her." Whence we may observe also, with what seri
ousness, gravity, and concern this whole matter was trans-

1 Optat. lib. ii. p. 58. Ubi vobis mandatum est radere capita sacerdotum t
 Qui parare debebas aures ad audiendum, parasti novaculam ad delin-
quenduin. Vid. Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 135. 2 Con. Tolet. iii. can. 12. Si
mulier fuerit, non aecipiat pcenitentiam, nisi prius aut velata fuerit, aut muta-
verit habitum. s Optat. lib. ii. p. 59. Extendistis ma
num, et super omne caput mortifera velamina praetendistis. Et. p. 61. Cum
super earum capita velaminapcenitentise tenditis. * Ambros-
ad Virg. Lapsam, cap. viii, Amputentur crines, qui per vanam gloriam oc-
casionem luxuriae prastiterunt. B Hieron. Ep. xxx. Ut
staretin ordine Poenitentium, Episcopo, Presbyteris et omni populo collacry-
mantibus, sparso crine, oralurida, et squalidas manui, sordida calla submit-
terit.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 543
sacted. For not only the party under penance took shame
to himself, and by these ceremonies expressed his sorrow
with tears ; but the whole Church with a compassionate
fellow feeling, took share in his grief, suffering with a suf
fering member, and weeping and mourning together with
him. After this manner Socrates, represents the practice of the
Roman Church in this exercise, telling us, that not only the
penitents prostrated themselves upon the ground with la
mentation and wailing, but that the bishop meeting them in
their proper station, fell to the earth likewise with tears,
whilst all the congregation wept with them. Then the
bishop rose up, and raised the penitents likewise, and made
the usual prayers for them before the mystical service began,
and so dismissed them from the Church. This was a very
solemn way of performing penance, that made a just im
pression upon the whole Church, whilst every man was
touched with a sense of his brethren's folly, and made their
sins not matter of sport or ridicule, but an occasion of ex
pressing his pity and compassion toward them, as members
of the same body, weeping with those that wept, and joining
his prayers and tears with theirs, to besiege heaven with
united force, and obtain of God mercy and pardon for
them. Sect. 4. — Penitents to abstain from Bathing, and other innocent Diver
sions of Life, as Feasting, &c.
Socrates takes notice in the same place, that penitents
were used to abstain from bathing and other innocent diver
sions of life. For he says, they exercised themselves wil
lingly in private, " rj vtgtlaig, "jjaXso-tate, ij iSto-juarajv diro-^rj,
with fastings, and neglect of bathing, and abstinence from
meats," as long as the bishop thought fit to enjoin them.
Which is also intimated by Pacian, when' he brings in the

1 Socrat. lib. vii. cap. 16.

544 THE ANTIQUITIES OK THE [BOOK XVIII.
penitent declaring,1 " that if any one called him to the bath
he refused such delights : if any one called him to a feast,
his answer was: Those things belong to the happy; but
as for me, I have sinned against the Lord, and am in danger
of eternal destruction."
Sect. 5.— To observe all the public Fasts of the Church.
And as they thus exercised themselves in private absti
nence, mortification and fasting ; so they were more espe
cially obliged to observe all the publie fasts of the Church.
There might be some reasons to excuse others, and dispense
with the rigour and severity of this exercise in some cases
and circumstances, requiring a little abatement in the laws
of fasting : but penitents were tied up to the strictest obser
vance of them. And therefore the fourth Council of Car
thage made a decree,2 that penitents should present them
selves at church on all times of fasting, and receive impo
sition of hands from the priests.
Sect. 6.— To restrain themselves in the Use of the conjugal State.
Some directions are also given, at least by private wri
ters, that penitents should abstain from the use of the mar
riage bed, during their continuance in the state of public
penance. This is a rule laid down by St. Jerome,3 that in
• the time of fasting the bridegroom and the bride should
sequester themselves from one another. " For he that says,
he does penance by abstinence from meat, and fasting, and
alms, in vain uses this speech, except he go out of his

1 Pacian. Paraenesis ad Pcenitent. Bibl. Patr. tom. iii. p. 73. Si quis ad bal
neum vocet, recusare delicias; si quis ad convivium vocet, dicere, Ista
felicibus ! ego deliqui in Dominum, et periclitor in seternum perire. Vid.
Tertul. de Pcenitent. cap. ix. Plerumque vero jejuniis preces alere, &c.
Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 135. s Con. Carth. iv. can. 80. Omni tempore
jejunii manus poenitentibus a. sacerdotibus imponatur. s Hieron. in
Joel. cap. ii. In tempore jejunii non serviat sponsus et sponsa operi nupti-
ali.  Qui incastigatione victQs, et jejunio, et eleemosynis dicit se agere
pcenitentiam, frustra hoc sermone promittit, nisi egrediatur de cnbili suo, at
sanctum purumque jejunium pudici expleat pcenitentia.

CHAP II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 545
chamber, and make his fast holy and pure by adding conti
nence to his repentance." And so St. Ambrose reckons
this a necessary part of self-denial upon such an occasion.1
" Does any one think that to be repentance, where a man is
engaged in an ambitious pursuit of honour, and indulges
himself in the use of wine and the marriage bed 1 Men must
renounce the world, abridge themselves of sleep, which na
ture requires, entreat the favour of God with sighing and
mourning and earnest prayers, and live so as to die to the
use of this life, and deny themselves, and become wholly
new men.
Sect. 7. — For which Reason no married Persons were admitted to Pe
nance, but by Consent of both Parties.
I cannot be positive, and therefore will not venture to
affirm it absolutely, that this was imposed by any public
rule of the Church, because I remember no Canon at pre
sent, that precisely enjoins it. The only thing that may in
cline a man to think there was such a rule, is, that there is
another rule of near relation to it, and which seems to be
grounded upon the presumption of such a practice : that is
an order we find in the second Council of Aries,8 that pe
nance should not be granted to any married people, man or
woman, without the desire and consent of both parties, this
seems to be grounded upon a supposition, that penitents
were under obligation to contain during the time of their
penance ; and if the innocent party would not consent, no
force or compulsion could be laid upon them. For the
laws of matrimony are prior to any rules, that could be made
about the exercise of public discipline by the Church.
Sect. 8. — Penitents not allowed to marry in the Time of their Penance.
It is another rule of the same Council, proceeding upon

1 Ambros. de Pcenitent. lib. ii. cap. 10. An quisquam illam pcenitentiam
putat, ubi acquirenda? ambitio dignitatis, ubi vini effusio, ubi ipsius copula;
conjugalis usus 1 Renunciandum seculo est, somno ipsi minds indulgendum
 seipsum sibi homo abneget, &c. s Con. Arelat. ii. can. 22.
Pcenitentiam conjugatis non nisi ex consensu dandam.
VOL. VI. 2 N

546 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
the like reason and supposition of perfect continency in
public penitents, that no penitent, man or woman, should
have liberty to marry, whilst they were doing penance:1 and
if they did, they should be rejected, and debarred even from
entering under the roof of the church. Or if they held any
suspicious conversation, or untawful familiarity with
strangers, in this state, they were liable to the same cen
sure. For all this was thought improper in their circum
stances, and inconsistent with the profession of a solemn and
deep repentance.
Sect. 9. — Penitents obliged to pray kneeling on all Festivals and Days of
Relaxation.
And whereas all others might pray standing on all festi
vals, on the Lord's-day, and the commemorations of mar
tyrs, and the whole fifty days between Easter and Pentecost,
which were called days of relaxation, and the standing pos
ture was appointed to be used on them by the laws of the
Church : penitents are particularly excepted from this pri
vilege, and obliged to pray kneeling at these times as well
as any other. For this posture was most agreeable to their
state, whose devotions consisted only in the expression of a
deep humility and sorrow for sin, for which kneeling was
thought the most decent posture. Therefore as others
were obliged to pray kneeling on their stationary days, and
days of fasting, because those were times of more solemn
humiliation: so the penitents were obliged to kneel every
day,2 even on the days of remission, because every day was
a day of humiliation to them, and their business in the
church was only to sue for mercy, and to prostrate them
selves to receive the solemn imposition of hands and bene
diction.

1 Con. Arelat. ii. can. 21. Pcenitentes, quse, defufieto viro, aliis mibere
pra^sumpserint, vel suspecta vel interdictii familiaritate se cum extraneo
junxerint, cum eodem ab ecelesise liminibus arceantur. Hacetiam de viro
in pcenitentia posito placuit observari, 2 Con. Garth.iv.
can. 82. Pcenitentes etiam diebus remissionis genua ilecteut.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 547

Sect. 10.— Penitents obliged to shew their Liberality to the Poor.
And because mercy and liberality to the poor was a great
argument and evidence of repentance, this was always in an
eminent degree exacted of them. Cyprian puts this among1
the other indications of repentance. " Can we think," says
he, " that that man laments with his whole heart, and depre
cates the Lord with fasting, weeping, and mourning, who,
from the very moment of his sinning, daily frequents the
baths, who feeds himself with luxurious feasting, and fills his
belly to an extraordinary pitch, only to belch forth his cru
dities the day after ; who imparts not his meat and drink to
the necessities of the poor ? How does he bewail his own
death, who walks about with a merry and cheerful counte
nance, who trims his beard and attires his face 1 Does he
think to please men, who displeases God 1 Does that wo
man lament and mourn, who is at leisure to put on her
costly clothing, and never thinks of the garment of Christ,
which she has lost?" In such a case he thh.ks charity to
the poor would be a more becoming ornament, than all
their silks, and jewels, and gold: therefore he advises them
to put on the ornament of Christ, that they might not ap
pear naked before him.
Sect. 11. — Penitents obliged to minister and serve the Church in bury
ing the Dead.
Finally, in some Churches the penitents were obliged to
take upon them the office and care of burying the dead : and
this by way of discipline, and exercise of humility and cha
rity, which were so becoming their station. In many
Churches, especially those of greater note, this business de
volved upon a certain order of men, called Parabolani,
whose office was particularly to attend the sick, and take
care to bury the dead :* but probably there was no such

Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 135. * Book iii. chap. 9.
' 2 N 2

548 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVII
standing office in many Churches, and therefore this em
ployment was put upon the penitents, as a proper exercise
for men in their condition. It is certain it was so in the
African Churches: for the fourth Council of Carthage gives
a particular direction in the case,1 " that the penitents should
bear out the dead to the church, and take care of their bu
rial." These were some of those wholesome and salutary ex
ercises, with which the ancient Church disciplined her pe
nitents, especiallly those of the third order, who were more
emphatically called penitents, as being in the state of pros
trators, which was the most noted order of penitents in the
Church. But there is one eminent act of penance, belong
ing to this order, yet behind ; that is, the Exomologesis, or
confession: which, because it has been turned into a new
thing by the Church of Rome, and occasioned some great
disputes, I have purposely reserved for a distinct handling,
and shall make it the subject of a particular dissertation in
the following chapter.

CHAP. III.
A particular Account of the Exomologesis, or Confession
used in the Discipline of the ancient Church ,- shewing
it to be a different Thing from the private or auricular
Confession introduced by the Church of Rome.
Sect. 1.— The gross Mistake of those, who make the Exomologesis of the
ancient Church to signify auricular Confession.
There is nothing more common among the polemical
writers of the Romish Church, than wherever they meet
with the word Exomologesis in any of the ancient writers,

1 Con. Carth. iv. can. 81. Mortuos pcenitentes ecclesia afferent et se-
peliant.

CHAF. III.] > CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 549
to interpret it private or auricular confession, such as is now
practised in the communion of that Church, and imposed
upon thenTas absolutely necessary to salvation. But they,
who with greater judgment and ingenuity among themselves
have more narrowly considered the matter, make no scruple
to confess, that the Exomologesis of the Ancients signifies
a quite different thing, viz. the whole exercise of public pe
nance, of which public confession was a noted part. The
learned Albaspinaeus very strenuously sets himself to refute
this error in the writers of his own party. Cardinal Bellar
min, says he,1 and Baronius, and Maldonat in his Contro
versies, and Pamelius in his Commentaries upon Tertullian
and Cyprian, lay it down as a certain truth, that the Fathers
generally take the word Exomologesis for private and auri
cular confession : but having long and accurately consider
ed all the places where it is mentioned, I cannot come in —
to their opinion. The Fathers, adds he, always use this word,
when they would describe the external rites of penance, viz.
weeping, and mourning, and self-accusation, and other the
like things, which penitents usually practised in the course
of public penance. For no one can be ignorant, that in
those first ages, penitents performed a long and laborious
penance, wherein they mortified themselves with continual
weeping, and stood before the gates of the church to give
public testimony of their sorrow for the sin they had com
mitted: moreover that they cast themselves on the ground
at the bishop's feet, and fell down at the knees of the mar
tyrs, and besought all the rest of the faithful, that they
would become intercessors to God for them, being clothed
in sackcloth, and covered with filthiness and horror: and
that when they had gone thus far in their penance, the
bishop was used to bring them from the doors into the
church, and sefthem before the presbyters, the deacons,
the widows, and all the people; where again they were used
to prostrate themselves on the ground^detesting their sins,
and commending themselves to the prayers of all, and so-

Albaspin. Observat. lib. ii. cip. 26. p. 153.

550 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
lemnly protesting, that they would never relapse or return
to their former condition again. "And upon this account,'
says he, "we often find this last rite called Exomologesis by
the Fathers, because it contained many acts in it, expressing
sorrow for the crimes they had committed ; in like manner as
the whole action and tenor of a penitent's life, whilst he is
doing penance, is sometimes called Exomologesis by the
Fathers." This he proves and confirms from many irrefra
gable testimonies out of Tertullian, Cyprian, and other an
cient writers, which I shall not here Telate, but only allege
one passage of Tertullian, which comes home to the pre
sent purpose. " The Exomologesis," says he,1 " is the dis
cipline of a man's prostrating and humbling himself, enjoin
ing him a conversation, that moves God to mercy and com
passion. It obliges a man to change his habit and his diet,
to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to defile his body by a neglect
of dress and ornament, to afflict his soul with sorrow, and to
change his former sinful conversation by a quite contrary
practice : to use meat and drink, not to please his appetite,
but only for preservation of life ; to quicken his prayers and
devotions by frequent fastings ; to groan and weep, and cry
unto the Lord God both day and night; to prostrate himself
before the presbyters of the Church, to kneel before the
friends of God, and beg of all the brethren, that they would
become intercessors for his pardon : all this the Exomologe
sis requires to recommend a true repentance." Here is not a
syllable of private or auricular confession, but all relates to
the public confession before the Church ; and that not so
much in words, as in actions, expressing their repentance
in publie demonstrations of their sorrow, and the uniform
tenor of a penitent behaviour; which was of far greater mo
ment to signify and evidence their conversion, than the
most pathetical words of any mere verbal or private con
fession. 1 Tertul.de Pcenitent. cap. ix. Exomologesis prosternendi et humilifi-
candi hominis disciplina est, conversationem injungens misericordia^ illicem.
De ipso quoque habitu et victu mandat, sacco et cineri incubare, corpus sor-
dibus obscurare, animum mceroribus dejicere, &c.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 551

Sect.2. — No Necessity of auricular Confession ever urged by the
ancient Church.
And this is one argument to prove, that the doctrine of the
necessity of auricular confession was wholly unknown to
the ancient Church. For when public discipline was in
general use, and all men were disposed to submit to it, there
could be little occasion for private confession, the reason
and ground of which was much better answered by the pub
lic. But besides this, there is most plain and direct evi
dence from the testimonies of the Ancients, that no neces
sity was laid upon any man to make private confession of
all or any of his secret sins to a priest, as a matter of indis-
pensible obligation, either to qualify him for the reception
of the Eucharist, or to give him a title to the communion of
the Church and eternal life. I have already shewn this,
with a particular respect to the reception of the Eucharist,
out of some very plain passages of Chrysostom, Gennadius,
Laurentius Novariensis,1 and other ancient writers; to which
I shall here add such other testimonies, as evidently shew,
they required no private confession to be made to man, ex
cept in some very particular cases. St. Chrysostom exhort
ing men to repentance, says,2 " I bid thee not to bring thy
self upon the stage, nor to accuse thyself unto others : but 1
advise thee to observe the prophet's direction, reveal thy
way unto the Lord, confess thy sins before God, confess
them before the judge; praying, if not with thy tongue, yet
at least with thy memory ; and sO look to obtain mercy. It
is better to be tormented with the memory of thy sins now,
than with the torment, that shall be hereafter. If you re
member them now, and continually offer them to God, and
pray for them, you shall quickly blot them out: but if you
forget them now, you will then remember them against your
will, when they sball be brought forth before the whole
world, and be publicly exposed upon the stage before all,

1 Book xv. chap. 8. sect. 6. '-' Chrys, Horn, xxy.i, in llebr. p. 1003.

552 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
friends, enemies, and angels." In another place,1 " It is not
necessary, that thou shouldst confess in the presence of wit
nesses ; let the inquiry after thy sins be made in thy own
thoughts ; let this judgment be without any witness ; let
God only see thee confessing." Again,2 " I beseech you
make your confession continually to God. For I do not
bring thee into the theatre of thy fellow-servants, neither
do I constrain thee by any necessity to discover thy sins
unto men : unfold thy conscience before God, and shew Him
thy wounds, and ask the cure of Him. Shew them to Him,
who will not reproach thee, but only heal thee. For although
thou confess not, He knows all. Confess therefore, that thou
mayest be a gainer. Confess, that thou mayest put off thy
sins in this world, and go pure into the next, and avoid that
intolerable publication, that will otherwise be made here
after. "Why art thou ashamed and blushest," says he, in
another place,3 "to confess thy sins 1 Dost thou discover them
to a man, that he should reproach thee1? Dost thou confess
them to thy fellow-servant, that he should bring thee
upon the open stage1? Thou only shewest thy wound
to Him, who is thy Lord, thy Curator, thy Physician, and thy
Friend. And He says to thee, I do not compel thee to go
into the public theatre, and take many witnesses. Confess
thy sin in"private to Me alone, that I may heal thy wound, and
deliver thee from thy grief." There are almost twenty pas
sages in the same author,* very full and pregnant to the
same purpose, which the learned reader may consult in their
proper places, or view them at once collected together by
Mr. Daille in his excellent book of Auricular Confession,5

1 Chrys. Hom.de Pcenitent. t. v. Edit. Latin. * Horn. xxx. sive
5. De Incomprehensibili Dei Natura, t. i. p. 392. 3 Hom. iv. de
Lazaro, t. f . p. 87. * Hom. lvii. Quod peccata non sint evulganda, t.
p. 754. Hom. lviii. Non esse ad gratiam concionandum. t. v. p. 772.
Hom. lxviii. de Pcenitentia Ahab. t. v. p. 1003. Hom. xxi. ad Pop. Antioch.
t. i. p. 270. Hom. viii. de Pcenitent. t. i. p. 700. Hom. ix. de Pcenitent.
ibid. p. 708. Hom. lxii. de Paralytico. t. v. p. 927. Hom. xx. in Gen. t. ii.
222. Hom. ii. in Psal. 1. t. 3. p. 1004, et 1005. Hom. xx. in Mat. p. 200,
Hom. xxviii. in i. Cor. p. 569. 4 Daill. de Confess. Auricular, lib.
iv. cap. 25.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 553
where he not only vindicates these passages of Chrysostom
from the sophistical glosses and evasions of the Romanists,
but also has unanswerably proved by no less than thirty ar
guments, and a cloud of other ancient witnesses, that there
could be no such thing as private, auricular, sacramental
confession enjoined, as of necessity to pardon of sin, in the
primitive Church. Chrysostom is not the only person, that
maintains this assertion. St. Basil says the same thing be
fore him :l " I do not make confession with my lips, to ap
pear to the world ; but inwardly in my heart, where no eye
sees ; I declare my groanings unto Thee alone, who seest
in secret, I roar within myself: for I need not many words
to make confession: the groanings of my heart are suffi
cient for confession, and the lamentations, which are sent up
to Thee, my God, from the botton of my soul." In like man
ner St. Hilary makes confession necessary to be made to
God only:2 for commenting on the fifty-second Psalm, he
tells us, David teaches us, that confession is necessary to be
made to none but God, who hath made the olive fruitful with
the hope of mercy for ever and ever. And St. Ambrose as
plainly says,3 that tears poured out before God are sufficient
to obtain pardon of sin, without confession made to man.
His words are, "Tears wash away sin, which men are
ashamed to confess. with their voice. Weeping provides at
once both for pardon and bashfulness: tears speak our
faults without horror ; tears confess our crimes without any
offence to modesty or shamefaced n ess." So again,1 speak
ing of St. Peter's tears, he says, " I find not what Peter said
but I find that he wept: I read of his tears, but I read not
of his satisfaction,'' meaning, that verbal confession was not
simply necessary to obtain pardon. And in this sense St.
Austin expounding those words of the Psalmist, " I said I

1 Basil, in Psal. xxxvii. viii. * Hilar, in Psal. li. p. 208. Nulli alii
docens confitendum, quam qui fecit olivam fructiferam spc misericordia in
seculum seculi. s Ambros. lib. X. in Luc. 22. Lavant lacryma deT
lictum, quod pudor est voce confiteri. Et veniae fletus consulunt et vere
cundia, &c. * Tbid. p. 167. Non invenioquiddixent Petrus;
invenio'quod jlcvcrit. Lacrymas ejus lego; satisfaction em ejus non lego.

554 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
will pronounce or declare my own wickedness against my
self unto the Lord, and so Thou forgavest the iniquity of my
heart," says, " he had not yet pronounced it,1 but only pro
mised, that he would pronounce it, and yet God forgave
him. He had not yet pronounced it, but only in his heart;
his confession was not yet come to his mouth, yet God
heard the voice of his heart: his voice was not yet in his
mouth, but the ear of God was in his heart; which im
plies, that God accepts and pardons the penitent and con
trite heart, even before any formal declaration is made by
vocal confession either to God or man." In another place2
he speaks of confession as no ways necessary to be made to
man. " What have I to do with men, that they should hear
my confessions, as though they could heal all my diseases'?"
He also frequently tells us,3 with all the rest of the ancient
writers, that a great many of those, which the Romanists
now call mortal sins, were daily pardoned upon no other
confession but the fervent and devout use of that of the
Lord's Prayer, " Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive
them that trespass against us." Which evidently shews,
that he did not believe auricular confession necessary for
expiating all manner of mortal sins, Maximus Taurinensis*
delivers his opinion almost in the same words as St. Ambrose
does: " Tears wash away sin, which the voice is ashamed
to confess. Therefore tears provide at once both for men's
modesty and salvation ; they neither make men blush in
their petitions, nor disappoint them of pardon in asking."
He adds, " that tears are a sort of silent prayers : they ask

1 Aug. Ser. ii. in Psal. 31. s Aug. Confess, lib. x. cap. 3. Quid
mihi ergo est cum hominibus, ut, audiant confessiones meas, quasi ipsi sana-
turi sint omnes languores meos 1 3 See this fully proved, book xvi.
chap. 3. sect. 14. * Max. Taurin. Hom. iii. de Poenit. Petri. Lavat
lacryma delictum, quod voce pudor est confiteri. Lacryma ergo verecundia
consilium pariter et saluti ; nee erubescunt in petendo, et impetrant in ro-
gando.-  Lacryma tacita quodammodo preces sunt; veniam non postulant,
etmerentur; causam non dicunt, et misericordiam consequuntur; nisi quod
utiliores laycrymarum preces sunt, quam sermonum ; quia sermo in precando
forte fallit, lacryma omnino non fallit. Sermo enim interdum non totum
profert negotium ; lacryma semper totum prodit affectum.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

555

not pardon in words, and yet deserve it, (that is,
in his style, procure it) they declare not the cause, and
yet obtain mercy. Nay the prayers of tears are many
times of more advantage, than those of words; because
words often prove deceitful in prayer, but tears never de
ceive. For words sometimes declare but half the business;
but tears always express the whole affection." Prosper, who
was St. Austin's scholar, follows his doctrine : for, speaking
of private sins committed by the clergy, he says,1 " They
shall more easily appease God, who being not convict by
human judgment, do of their own accord acknowledge their
offence; who either do discover it by their own confessions,
or else others not knowing what they are in secret, do vo
luntarily inflict the sentence of excommunication upon them
selves ; and being separated, not in mind, but in office, from
the altar, to which they did minister, do lament their life as
dead; assuring themselves, that God being reconciled unto
them by the fruits of effectual repentance, they shall not
only receive what they have lost, but also being made citi
zens, of that city which is above, they shall come to ever
lasting joys." Cassian also assures us, that this was the
doctrine of the Egyptian Fathers. For he says, Pinuphius
the Egyptian Abbot gave this advice to the monks, that were
under him : " Who is it that cannot humbly say '? ' I made my
sin known unto Thee, and my iniquity have I not hid ;' that
by this confession he may confidently adjoin that, which fol
lows: ' and so Thou forgavest the impiety of my heart.' But
if shamefacedness so draw thee back,2 that thou blushest to
reveal them before men ; cease not by continual supplica
tion to confess them unto Him from whom they cannot be hid,
and to say, ' I know my iniquity, and my sin is against me,
alway:'to Thee only have I sinned,and done evil before Thee,
whose custom is both to cure without publishing our shame,
1 Prosper, de Vita Contemplat. lib. ii. cap. 7. Deum facilius placabunt
qui non humano convicti judicio, &c. 2 Cassian. Collat. x\. cap. 8.
Quod si verecundia retrahente, revelare ea coram hominibus ernbrscis, illi
quem latere non possunt, confiteri eajugi supplicatione non definas,&c.

556 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
and to pardon sins without accusing or upbraiding." These
are plain testimonies evidently shewing, that the Ancients
did not believe the necessity of auricular confession, or
urge it as a thing absolutely necessary to absolution and
salvation.
Sect. 3.— This proved further from the Practice of the Ancients in denying
all Manner of Absolution to some relapsing Sinners, without excluding
them from the Mercy and Pardon of God upon Confession to Him alone.
But besides this the practice of the Ancients, in one par
ticular case, does most irrefragably shew, that they did not
believe the necessity of auricular confession. For they al
lowed no second public penance to many relapsing sinners,
nor ever gave them any manner of sacerdotal absolution to
their lives end : which shall be evidently demonstrated in
the next chapter. Now the plain consequence of this is,
that no penitential confession, either public or private, was
taken from such, as made to man, in order to obtain sacerdo
tal absolution : yet still they exhorted them to repent in pri
vate, and make private confession of their sins to God, in
hopes of obtaining mercy and pardon from him at the great
day of retribution. It is confessed on all hands, that such
relapsers never had the privilege to make their public confes
sion in the church, in order to obtain public absolution : and
it is as certain, they were not admitted to compound by any
private sacerdotal confession, to obtain private sacerdotal
absolution. For though Cardinal Perron had a strong fancy
to solve the difficulty of this argument, by feigning a sort of
private confession for them, when they were denied the pub
lic; yet. Petavius himself refutes this pretence,1 as a mere
dream without any foundation in ancient history, and givesa
solid reason to the contrary. For as he argues, if private
confession had been allowed to such relapsers, their condi
tion had been happier, and their penance easier, than those
who fell but once: which is a thing, that will hardly enter
into any man's imagination, that considers things with any

Petav. Not. in Epiphan. p. 238.

CHAP. HI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 557.
manner of judgment and reason. Supposing then the truth
of this fact, that the Ancients allowed such relapsers neither
the benefit of public nor private absolution upon any confes
sion whatsoever : it evidently follows, that they did not be
lieve any absolute necessity of auricular confession, since
they encouraged such sinners nothwithstanding to hope for
mercy and pardon upon private repentance and confession
made to God only, For the proof of which, one passage of
St. Austin will be sufficient, where he speaks the general
practice of the Church, and the sense of all his brethren.
" The iniquity of men," says he " sometimes proceeds so
far, that after they have done public penance, after they have
been reconciled to the altar, they commit the same or great
er sins ; and yet God makes his sun to rise even upon such,.
and bestows upon them no less than before the greatest
gifts of life and salvation. And though there be no place
allowed to such in the Church,1 to perform that humble sort
of penance again, yet God does not forget his patience to
ward them. But if any of these should say to us, either
grant me the same place of repentance again, or else suffer
me to go on desperately, to live as I list, to do whatever my
riches will enable me to do, and no human laws will forbid
me, to live in whoredom and all manner of luxury, which
though damnable before the Lord, is even laudable in the
eyes of many men : or if ye recall me from this wickedness,
tell me whether it will profit me any thing towards eternal
life, if in this life I contemn the blandishments of enticing
pleasure, if 1 bridle the excitements of lust, if for the chas
tisement of my body I deny myself many things, that are
lawful and allowed, if I torment myself more vehemently in
repentance, than I did before, if I groan more miserably, and
weep more abundantly, if I live better, if I more liberally
sustain the poor, if I more ardently flame in charity, which
covers a multitude of sins: which of us is so foolish, as to

1 Aug. Ep. liv. ad Macedon. p. 92. Quamvis eis in ecclesia locus humilli-
ma poenitentia non concedatur, Deus tamen super eos sua patientite non
obliviscitur, &c.

558 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
say to this man, all this will profit thee nothing hereafter,
go and enjoy the pleasures of this life ? God forbid we
should be guilty of so monstrous and sacrilegious madness.
Therefore though it be a cautious and salutary rule andpro-
vision in the ecclesiastical law, that this place of the hum
blest penance shall not be granted above once in the Church,
lest by making the medicine too vile and cheap, it should
become less useful to those that are sick, being so much
the more beneficial, by how much it is less contemptible :
yet who dares to say to God, why dost Thou spare this man,
who after his first penance binds himself again in the bonds
of iniquity ? Who dares say, that God deals not with them
according to that saying of the Apostle, ' Knowest thou not
that the long-suffering of God leadeth thee to repentance V
Or that they are excepted from that general declaration,
' Blessed are all they that put their trust in him V Or that it
belongs not to them, when it is said, ' Be strong, and esta
blish your heart all ye that put your trust in the Lord V" If St.
Austin here rightly represents the practice of the Church, in
this one case, there wasnouse made either of publie or pri
vate confession to men, to obtain the remission of the great
est sins ; but men were directed to another method, to seek
pardon from God by the exercise of a private repentance.
Consequently there could be no absolute necessity of auri
cular confession, which in this case had been most likely to
have been prescribed in want of the other, had any such
necessity been taught or laid upon it, as is now by the im
perious and dictating authority of the Church of Rome.

Sect. 4. — And from several other Considerations of the like Nature.
The learned Mr. Daille, has urged many other considera
tions of great weight, which I cannot here insist upon, but
only mention the heads of them, for the sake of the unlearn
ed readers, or such of the learned as have not that excellent
and elaborate work of his by them. 1. He argues from the

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 559
practice of all other Churches in the world beside the Ro
man:1 the doctrine of the necessity of auricular confession,
is taught by no other denomination of Christians, not the
Ethiopians, nor the Indians of St. Thomas, nor the Babylo
nians or Chaldeans, nor the Armenians, nor the Jacobites,
nor the Greeks in the manner of the Romans. 2. He shews,
that whereas the priests in the Roman Church are nicely
instructed in the business of auricular confession, and teach
and minister it daily to the people, as the noblest act of
their office ; there is nothing of all this to be found in the ge
nuine writings of the ancient Christians. 3. Whereas auri
cular confession is continually mentioned by the Roman
writers, among the religious acts of all sorts of men, clergy,
monks,laity, princes, private men, noblemen, plebeians, men,
women, &c. there is nothing of this among the ancient Chris
tians. 4. In the ancient Church Christians were bound by
no law, as now they are in the Roman, to confess their sins
to a priest before they came to the Lord's table, to receive
the eucharist. Which he demonstrates by eight reasons, and
the testimony of Chrysostom, Pelagius, Austin, Dorotheus,
the Council of Chalon and Hincmar. 6. In the Roman
Church, it is usual for every one to make his auricular con
fession at the point of death ; of which there are no foot-steps
among the Ancients. 6. The Romish writers are very full of
auricular confession in describing any of the sicknesses, or ca
lamities, or wars, or shipwrecks, or journeys, or other ha
zardous undertakings of their people : but there was no such
practice among the Ancients. 7. The Ancients in describing
the persecutions of the Church, or the conflicts and trials and
last agonies of their confessors and martyrs, never mention
auricular confession, which yet abounds every where in the
Romish writers, when they make any such relations of the
lives or deaths of their martyrs. 8. The Ancients had no
solemn times appointed for auricular confession, as Easter,
Christmas, Lent, the greater festivals, and the Friday and
Saturday fasts, which are now every where spoken of, in the

1 Dail. de Confess. Auricular, lib. iv. cap. 1, &c.

560 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
Romish writers, as solemn times of confession. 9. The An
cients say nothing of miracles done in or by confession,
which the Romanists continually boast of. 10. The ancient
Pagans never objected auricular confession to the primitive
Christians, as the modern pagans do to those of the Roman
communion. 11. The ancient Church knew nothing of he
retics opposing auricular confession, because there was no'
such thing enjoined ; but since it was appointed by the Coun
cil of Lateran, Anno 1215, many have been condemned as
heretics for opposing it. 12. The primitive bishops often
declare, that they were ignorant of the sins of their people;
particularly this is said by Chrysostom, Austin, Innocent,
and Leo, bishops of Rome : which is an argument, that they
were not revealed to them by sacramental confession. 13.
The first man, that instituted any private confession, was St.
Anthony, who appointed his monks to write down their
thoughts, and communicate them one to another: but this
was nothing to sacerdotal confession ; for these monks were
only laymen. 14. The ancient writers have none of those in
tricate questions and disputations about auricular confession,
which so much stuff the books of the modern casuists in the
Church of Rome. 15. The Fathers never interpret those
passages of Scripture, which the Romanists produce for
auricular confession, in their sense, but most of them to a
contrary meaning. 16. The Fathers in those Books, which
they wrote professedly of repentance,, never urge auricular
confession as a necessary part of Tepentance. 17. The Fa
thers acknowledged only three sorts of repentance; the ante-
baptismal, for all manner of sins ; the quotidian or daily re
pentance, for lesser sins of daily incursion ; and the public
penance of lapsers, falling into more heinous sins: but auri
cular confession appertains to none of these. 18. Gregory
Nyssen says expressly there were some sins,1 such as cove
tousness, which the Fathers before him endeavoured to
cure, not by any canonical punishments, but only by the
public exhortations of the word and doctrine: which will not
1 Nyssen. Ep. ad Letoium.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 561
consist with the doctrine of auricular confession 19 Nee-
tanus wholly abrogated tho office of the penitentiary priest.
Which argues, that there was no necessity of auricular con
fession : but of this office we must speak a little more parti
cularly hereafter. 20. His next argument is drawn from
those passages of Chrysostom, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose,
Maximus Taurinensis, and St. Austin, which have been al
ready mentioned, asserting, that remission of sins may be
obtained of God by contrition only, without any oral confes
sion. 21 . The Fathers allow salvation to be attainable even
by those relapsers, who fell again into sin after their first
public penance, though they had no liberty either to make
. confession or receive absolution. Which argument has
been particularly explained already. His 22, 23, and 24
arguments are drawn from the testimonies of Cassian, and
Juhanus Pomerius or Prosper, and Laurentius Novariensis,
which have been related before. 25. To these he adds two
considerable testimonies of Bede. 26. And the concessions
of Erasmus, Beatus Rhenanus, and Rigaltius, who freely
own, (hat the Romish auricular confession was not in use in
the primitive Church. 27. He shews, that there was a change
made of the ancient discipline in the ninth age, when pri
vate penance enjoined by the priest began to be pretty fre
quent and common. 28. And yet this differed vastly in
many particulars from the confession established afterwards
in the Council of Lateran. For still it was believed, that
confession made to God only was sufficient to salvation. 29.
In the following ages also, Goffridus Vindocinensis, Peter
Lombard, -and Gratian,1 say there weTe many, who still held
that confession to God alone was sufficient without confes
sing to the priest. And Gratian particularly, having cited
the authorities on both sides of the question, leaves it to the
judgment of the reader to take which opinion he pleases :
because each opinion had wise and religious men to au-

1 Goffrid. lib. v. ep. 16. Lombard. Distinct, lib. iv. sect. 17. Gratian.de
Pcenit. Dist. ii. cap. S9. Cui harum potius adfiarendum sit, lectoris judicia
roservatur. Utraque enim fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros.
VOL. VI. 2 Q

562 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
thorise and defend it. Which argues, that in Gratian's time
the question about the necessity of auricular confession was
not so determined as it was afterwards in the Council of La
teran, and the Council of Trent. This is also acknowledged
by Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Antonine, who say, that in the
time of Gratian and Lombard, the question about the neces
sity of such confession, was only problematical, and what
mi°ht safely be disputed both ways, and that it was no he
resy to deny it: but after the determination of the Church
made under Innocent III. in the Lateran Council, it was to
be reputed heresy for any man to assert, that it was sufficient
to confess a man's sins to God without making confession to
a priest also. 30. Thus the doctrine of auricular confession
was established in the thirteenth century, and not before:
and even after that there wanted not witnesses, such as
Wickliffe, and Huss, and Semeca, and Michael of Bononia,
and Petrus Oxomensis,to bear testimony against its novelty,
to the time of the Reformation. This is the short account of
those thirty arguments, which the learned Mr. Daille uses to
shew the novelty of the Romish doctrine concerning auri
cular confession, which, the curious reader, who desires to
see them more fully deduced and confirmed, may consult
in our author's elaborate work for his further satisfaction.
Sect. 5. — Yet private Confession allowed and encouraged in some Cases.
As, 1. For lesser Sins, Men were advised to confess mutually to one ano
ther, to have their Prayers and Assistance.
But in all that is said by this or any other Protestant wri
ter, there is no intent to deny, that private confession was
allowed and encouraged by the Ancients in some cases, and
upon some special occasions. For,
1. They advised all men, in case of lesser sins, to make
confession mutually to one another, that they might have
each others prayers and assisance. This is the advice of
St. James, v. 16. " Confess your faults one to another, and
pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual
fervent prayer of a righteous man availelh much." Which
though it be a place commonly produced by the Romanists,

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 563
for their auricular confession to a priest, yet it was anciently
thought no more than a direction to Christians in general to
confess their sins mutually to one another. Thus, it is cer
tain, St. Austin understood it: for writing upon those words
of our Saviour in St. John, " If I your Lord and master
have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's
feet ;" he thus expounds them and the words of St. James
together :• " Can we say, that one brother may cleanse ano
ther from the contagion of sin ? Yes we are taught to do
it by the mystical meaning of this work of our Lord, that
we should confess our sins one to another, and pray one for
another, as Christ intercedes for us. Let us hear St. James
the Apostle, evidently commanding this very thing, and say
ing, ' Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for
another,' because in this our Lord hath set.us an example. For
if He, who neither has, nor ever had, nor ever will have any
sin, prays for our sins; how much rather ought we to pray
for the sins of one another'? And if He forgive us, who has
nothing to be forgiven by us ; how much more ought we (o
forgive one another, who cannot live here without sin % Let us
therefore forgive one another, and pray for each other's sins,
that so we may in some measure wash one another's feet."
In like manner Eradius, or St. Austin himself in another
.place says,2 " We are admonished throughout the whole
Scripture to confess our sins continually and humbly, not only
to God, but to holy men and those that fear God. For so the
Holy Ghost teaches us by James the Apostle, saying,' Con
fess your faults one to another, aud pray one for another,
that ye may be h ealed.' " Hincmar, a learned French bishop
of the ninth age, gives the same interpretaiion : " Our
light and daily sins,'' says he,3 "according to the exhorta
tion of St. James, are daily to be confessed to those that are
our equals: and such sins we may believe, will be cleansed
by their daily prayers, and our own acts of piety, if with a

1 Aug. Tract, lviii. in Joan. torn. ix. p. 161. 3 Aug. Hom.
xii. F.x. 1. tom. x. p: 161. s Hincmar. Epist. ad Hildeboldiim,
tom. ii. n. 40. p. 68S. Quotidiana autem, leviaque peccata, secundum Jacob!
Apostoli hortamentum, alterutrum cosequ aii bus confitenda sunt, &c.
2o2

564 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
charitable mind we truly say in the Lord's prayer, ' Forgive
us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against
us.'" And Maldonat says,1 this was the sense of all the An
cients, alleging not only St. Austin, but Hesychius, and
Gregory the Great, and Bede, and the author of the Inter-
lineary Gloss. To which others3 add Scotus, and Biel, and
Dionysius Carthusianus, and Cajetan, and Gagnajus, and
Godellus, a late bishop, in the French Church ; however
Bellarmin came to fix upon this passage of St. James, as a
plain proof of auricular confession to a priest, which in the
case mentioned, according to the opinon of so many Ancients
and Moderns, directs to no other confession, but what may
be made to any pious Christian.

Sect. 6.-2. In Case of Injuries done to private Persons, Men were obliged
to confess, and ask Pardon of the injured Party.
2. In case of private injuries done to any private person,
there was no question ever made, but that the offending
party might make a private confession of his fault to the of
fended party, and give him private satisfaction. For so
Christ had appointed, Mat. v. 23. " If thou bring thy gift
to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath
ought against thee ; leave there thy gift before the altar, and
go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come
and offer thy gift." Upon which St. Austin says,3 " A man
may with an unfeigned heart endeavour to pacify and ap
pease him, by asking him pardon, if he does this before God.
Nay, it is his only remedy in this case, to ask pardon ; which
whoever does not, he is puffed up with the spirit of vain
glory."

1 Maldonat. Controver. tom. ii. de Confessione, cap. ii. p. 33.
* Vid. Daill.de confess, lib. i. cap. 12. s Aug.de Sermone
Dom. inMonte, lib. i. cap. 10. Poteris eum non stimulato animo lenire,
atque in gratiam revocare, veniam postulando, si hoc prius coram Deo fece-
ris  Quod est unum remedium, supplici animo veniam deprecetur : quod
quisquis non fecerit inanis jactantiae spiritu inflatur.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 565
Sect. 7. — 3. When they were under any Troubles of Conscience, they were
advised to make private Confession to a Minister, to have his Counsel and
Direction. 3. When men were under any perplexities of mind, or trou
bles of conscience, from the pressure and load of sin ; that
was another case, in which they were always directed to
have recourse to some wise and prudent pastor, to take his
counsel and advice, and his assistance, and his prayers, as a
sort of mediator and intercessor under Christ for them. The
Romish writers are apt to allege many passages out of the
Ancients, which upon examination and strict enquiry amount
to no more than this. Thus Clemens Romanus, or the au
thor under his name, bids every one, into whose heart either
envy or infidelity, or any such crime, has slily crept, not be
ashamed, if he has any care of his soul, to confess his sin to
the bishop or minister presiding over him,1 that by the word
of God and his saving counsel he maybe healed. And so
Maldonat owns,2 this has no relation to sacramental confes
sion. The same advice is given by Origen, Gregory Nys
sen,3 and St. Basil,* upon the like occasion, to confess their
sins to the priest, who by his compassion and skilfulness
was able to help their infirmities, and at once take care hath
of their credit and cure.

Sect. 8. — 4. To take his Advice also, whether it was proper to do public
Penance for private Offences.
4. Origen gives another reason for confessing private
sins to the priest, because he was best able to judge, whe
ther it were proper for such sins to admit men to do public
penance in the church, which in those days was no unusual
practice. " Consider," says he,8 " what the holy Scripture

1 Clem. Ep. i. ad Jacob. Non erubescat qui animae suae curam gerit, haec
confiteri ei qui prseest, ut ab ipso per verbum Dei et consilium ealubre cu-
rclur. 2 Maldonat. de Confess, cap.ii. p. 40 tom. ii.
3 Nyssen. de Pcenitent. torn. iii. p. 17fi. * Basil, Re-
gul. Brev. Resp. 239. s Orig. Horn. ii. in Psal. 37. torn, i.
p. 47 1 .

566 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
teaches us, that we ought not to conceal our sin within our
own breast. For perhaps as they, who are inwardly oppress
ed with the humour or phlegm of indigested meat, which lies
heavy upon the stomach, if they vomit it up, are relieved ; so
they, who have sinned, if they hide and conceal their sin
within themselves, are inwardly oppressed, and almost suf
focated with the phlegm and humour of sin : but if any one
become his own accuser, and confess his sin, in so doing he
as it were vomits up his sin, and digests and removes the
cause of his distemper. Only be circumspect in the choice
of him, to whom it will be fit to confess thy sin. Try first
the physician, to whom thou art to reveal the cause of thy
distemper, and see that he be one, who knows how to be
weak with him that is weak.and to weep with him that weeps;
one who understands the discipline of condoling and
compassionating ; that so at length, if he shall say any thing,
who hath first shewn himself to be both a skilful and a
merciful physician, and give thee any counsel, thou mayest
observe and follow it. If he discerns and foresees thy dis
temper to be such, as will need to be declared and cured in
the full assembly of the Church, whereby others perhaps
may be edified, and thou thyself healed, this is to be done
with great deliberation, and the prudent advice of such a
physician." It is very plain, that in this case this sort of
private confession was made in order to take the minister's
advice concerning doing public penance for any private sin ;
and that men had recourse to him in private, as to one, who
was best able to judge, whether their sin were of such a
nature, as would require a public humiliation and repent
ance. For this, as 1 said before, was no unusual thing in
those days, for men sometimes to desire to do public penance
for private offences ; yea, even for the very intention and
design of some grosser sins, though they never proceeded
so far as the outward action. Cyprian speaks of some such
offenders, who reckoned themselves guilty of idolatry,1 not
1 Cy.pr.deLapsis.p. 134. Quamvis nullo sacrificii aut libelli facinore con
strict!, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitaverunt, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotei

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 567
because they had either actually sacrificed to idols, or pro
cured any libel to signify their so doing, but only because
they had designed in their hearts to do it: who iherefore
confessed their wicked intention to the priests, in order todo
public penance for it (though it was but a small sin in com
parison) as knowing that it was written, " God is not mock
ed." These private sins after secret confession were some
times publicly declared and read out of a libel in the con
gregation : but all bishops did not approve of this prac
tice:1 and therefore when Pope Leo understood, that several
bishops in the provinces of Campania, Samnium, and Pice-
num took this method, he wrote a sharp letter to them,
complaining of it as an unlawful usurpation and irregular
practice, to put those who made secret confession to the
priests, upon a public rehearsal -of their crimes afterwards
in the face of the congregation: which custom ought by all
means to be abrogated and laid aside. For though it may
seem a very laudable plenitude of faith, that for the fear of
God makes men not afraid to take shame before men ; yet
because all men's sins, which come under penance, are not
such as they are not afraid to have made public, this unrea
sonable custom ought to be altered, lest many should be
driven from the remedy of repentance, whilst either theyare
ashamed or afraid to have their actions laid open before
their enemies, who perhaps might take occasion from thence
to bring them into danger of the civil laws, and the penal
ties imposed by them upon such offences. Which last
words of Leo suggest a further reason, why the Ancients in
some cases allowed of private confession, even when pe
nance itself in its exercise was to be public. For we may
observe,Dei dolenter et simpliciter confitentes, exomologesin conscientiae faciunt,
animi sui pondus expdnunt, salutarem medelam parvis licet et modicis vulne-
ribus exquirunt ; scientes scriptum esse, Deus ndn deridetur.
1 Leo. Ep. lxxx. al. 78. ad Episc. Campan. Illam etiam contra apostoli
cam regulam praesumptionem, quam nuper aguovi a quibusdam illicita usur-
patione committi, modis omnibus constituo submoveri, ne de singulorum pec
catorum genere libellis scripta professio publice recitetur, cum reatus consci-
entiarum sufficiat solis sacerdotibus indicari confessione secretS, &c. Vid.
Basil, can.lxi. etlxiii. Paulin, Vit. Ambros. p. 10, Ambros. de Pcenit, lib.
i. c 16. Gennad. de Dogm. Eccles. cap. liii.

568 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.

Sect. 9.-5. When there was any Danger of Death arising from the Laws
of the State against certain Offences.
5. That when there was any apparent danger to men's
lives or otherwise, arising from the penalties of the civil ^
laws, inflicting capital punishments on certain offences; in
that case the Church was content to take a private confes
sion of sinners, and excuse them from a dangerous publi
cation. It is of this case St. Austin speaks, when he says1,
" we ought to correct secret sins in secret, lest if we pub
licly reprove them, we betray the man. We would reprove
;ind correct him: but what, if an enemy lies upon the catch,
to hear something for which he may punish him'? A bishop,
(put the case,) perhaps knows a man to be a murderer, and
besides himself no one else knows it: I would publicly re
buke the man, but then you would seek to take the law
upon hitn. In this case I neither betray the man nor neglect
him: I reprove him in secret; I set before his eyes the
judgment of God; I terrify his bloody conscience, and per
suade him to repentance. It happened also that sometimes
persons confessed such secret sins, as though they would
not endanger their lives by a regular' course of law, yet
might provoke an injured party, if he knew them, in a sud
den fit of zeal and passion to destroy them. In this case it
was thought more proper to let the confession and penance
be both in private, lest any such inconvenience might follow
upon the publication. St. Basil instances in the case of a
woman,2 that confesses herself guilty of adultery: the law
allowed not the husband to kill her, except he took her in
the very act: but it might happen, that in his zeal and fury
he might be tempted even against law to kill her, if by any
means he came to understand, that she had been guilty of
such a transgression : therefore to avoid the occasion of

1 Aug. Ser. xvi. de Verb. Dom. cap. viii. In secreto debemus arguere, in
secreto compare: ne, volentes publice arguere, prodamus hominem. Nos
Voluinus eorri|'eir et corrigc>rr: quid si iiumii-ns quicrit auuirc quod pu-
nial ? &c. ' Basil, ran. \x\iv.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 569
any such temptation.it was ordered, that no minister should
" Sriuomtvuv, publish the crime of women under penance of
adultery upon their own confession, lest it should occasion
their death ;" that is, expose them to the fury of their hus
bands, who might be inclined, in the height of passion, to ex
ceed all bounds, and do what by law they could not answer
Sect. 10. — 6. Private Confession required in Case of private Admonition
for Offences.
6. I remember but one case more, in which any thing
like private confession was required; and that was, when
any man was rebuked for a crime by his spiritual guide, of
which he was either notoriously guilty, or violently suspect
ed : in that case it was his duty to give glory to God, and
take shame to himself, by an ingenuous confession and ac-
knowledg-ment of his fault, to answer the true end of pri
vate admonition. It is of this sort of confession St. Am
brose speaks in the person of David,1 when he says, that
being rebuked by a private man for his great offence, he did
not fret and fume with indignation, but ingenuously confess
his fault, and mourn with sorrow for it.
Sect. 11. — The Office of the penitentiary Priest set up in many Churches
to receive and regulate such private Confessions.
All these sorts of private confession were anciently al
lowed of, as consistent with the standing arid ordinary disci
pline of public confession and penance in the Church. And
the better to regulate them, and direct men what to do in
such cases, there was a particular officer appointed in many
Churches under the name of the penitentiary priest: whose
office was not to receive private confessions in prejudice to
the public discipline; much less to grant absolution pri
vately upon bare confession before any penance was per
formed ; which was a practice altogether unknown to the
ancient Church, as we shall see more hereafter: But it was
1 Ambros. deApolog. David, cap. ii. Cum a privato homine corriperclur,
ijuod graviter deliquisset, non indignatus infremuit, sed confessus ingemuii
ellipse dolore.

570 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII,
to facilitate and promote the exercise of public discipline,
by acquainting men what sins the laws of the Church re
quired to be expiated by public penance, and how they were
to behave themselves in the performance of it; and only to
appoint private penance for such private crimes as were not
proper to be brought upon the public stage, either for fear
of doing harm to the penitent himself, or giving scandal to
the Church.
Sect. 12.— This Office afterwards abrogated, and Men were entirely left
to their Liberty, as to what concerned private Confession.
The whole history of the first original and institution of this
office in the time of the Decian persecution, and the abroga
tion of it by Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, in the time
of Theodosius, is entirely owingto the relation of Socrates and
Sozomen, two historians, who lived in the same age that the
office was abolished; and therefore it will be proper to re
late it. in their words first, and then make a few remarks
upon it. Socrates,1 speaking of the reign of Theodosius,
says, " About this time it was thought proper to remove the
penitentiary presbyters — rag inl tt/c /xsravolag irpiafivrtpsg,
out of the churches on this occasion. From the time that
the Novations made their separation from the Church, re
fusing to communicate with those that-lapsed in the Decian
persecution, the bishops added to the ecclesiastical roll —
(tojv £K(cXr)cricov tcavovt) — a penitential presbyter; that they,
who fell into any sins after baptism, might make confes
sion of them before the presbyter thereto appointed. And
this order continues still among other sects ; only they
who receive the consubstantial doctrine, and the Novatians
who agree with them in the same faith, are equally now*
agreed to reject the penitential presbyter. The Novatians,
indeed, never admitted this additional office from the be
ginning; and the present governors of the Churches,
though they allowed it for a longtime, yet now under Nec-
tarius laid it aside, upon a certain accident that happened
1 Socrat. lib. v. cap. 19.

CHAP. HI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

571

in the Church. For a certain gentlewoman coming to the
penitentiary presbyter, made particular confession of her
sins that she had committed after baptism. And the pres
byter enjoined her to fast and pray continually, 'that together
with her confession she might shew forth works worthv of
repentance. But the woman proceeding in the course of
her penance, accused herself of another sin : for she con
fessed, that one of the deacons of the Church had defiled
her. Which occasioned the deacon to be cast out of the
Church; and there was no small stir among the people,
who were incensed not barely for the fact, but because it
brought great scandal and reproach upon the Church. And
the clergy being chiefly reviled upon this occasion, one Eu-
dsemon, a presbyter ofthe Church, born at Alexandria, gave
counsel to Nectarius to take away the penitentiary presby
ter, and leave it to every man's liberty to partake of the
holy mysteries according to the direction of his own con
science: for this was the only way to free the Church from
reproach." This, he says, he the more confidently inserted
into his history, because he had it from the mouth of Eudse-
mon himself; though he told Eudaemon, he doubted whe
ther his counsel was for the advantage of the Church, since
it would occasion the neglect of mutual Teproof, and the
transgression of that rule of the Apostle, " Have no fel
lowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather re
prove them. Sozomen,1 in relating the same story, observes,
that the chief offices of this penitentiary presbyter were,
partly to direct such as had need of public penance, how to go
about it, and perform it, and partly to impose private exer
cises of repentance upon those that needed not to undergo
the public: and therefore that he was to be both a prudent
man, to direct the one ; and ^\ijivQov, a man that could
keep secrets without disclosing, them, for the sake of the
other. He observes further, that when Nectarius had abo
lished this officeat Constantinople, his example wasfollowed
by almost all the bishops ofthe East; but that it continued
1 Sozomen. lib. vii. cap. 16.

r>72 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
in use in the Western Churches, and chiefly at Rome, to
prepare men for the public penance of the Church, which
he there takes occasion to describe in the whole course and
process of it.
Now from hence it is obvious to observe, 1. That this
office was not set up to encourage auricular confession in
prejudice to the public discipline, but chiefly to promote th.e
exercise of public penance in the Church. 2. That it was
not of divine, but only ecclesiastical institution. And there
fore, 3. As it was instituted by the wisdom of the Church
for good ends; so when those ends could not be served,
and perhaps better might, it was at the Church's liberty, by
the same wisdom, to abolish it, and put it down again, as
Nectarius did in the East. 4. That the abolishing of it did not
necessarily imply the abolishing of public discipline; which
still continued in force in the Eastern Church, notwithstand
ing the abrogation of this office; though, perhaps, some
thing-weakened in respect to private offenders; partly be
cause they were not so much inclined to confess ; and partly
because the business of discipline now devolving wholly
upon the bishops, as it was before, they had not leisure to
attend to it. 5. It is very plain from hence, that there was
no necessity laid upon men to confess all their secret mortal
sinsbefore they came to the communion ; but it was enough,
as Valesius ingenuously confesses,1 for men to search their
own consciences, whereby they thought they satisfied that
precept of the Apostle, " Let a man examine himself, and so
let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. ' And so
we have taken a full view of confession, both public and
private, so far as it was in use and practice in the ancient
Church, beyond which it is none of my province to extend
the inquiry, and search after the deviations and corruptions
of modern ages, which the reader may find in any of our
polemical writers against the Church of Rome, or discern
them by the account that has here been (riven, reducing
every thing to the primitive standard.
1 Vales, in Sozom. lib. vi. cap. 28.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 573

CHAP. IV.
Of the great Rigour, Strictness, and Severity of the
Discipline and Penance of the Ancient Church.
Sect. 1. — Public Penance ordinarily allowed but once to any Sort of
Sinners.
There remains now but one thing more to be considered
in the exercise of the ancient public penance, and that is
the great strictness, rigour, and severity of it, expressed
against all sins that fell under public discipline, and more
especially those that were of a more heinous and malignant
nature. One instance of the severity of their penitential
rules was, that they ordinarily admitted men but once to the
privilege of publie penance, and allowed no second
penance to be performed in the Church by any sort of relap
sers. I have already hinted this in the last chapter, and
shall here give more evident proof of it, so far as concerns
the general practice of the Church in the four first ages;
shewing withal what exceptions it admitted of, by the power
that was lodged in every bishop's hands to moderate the
exercise of discipline, as occasion might require, according
to his own judgment and discretion. We do not indeed find
any general rule or Canon for this peremptory denial of a
second penance to relapsers; but if we consider the practice
of the Church, we shall find it almost univeral. Hermes
Pastor, who wrote in the beginning of the second century,
plainly asserts this,1 that the servants of God allowed but of
once doing penance. And therefore he advises the hus
band, who has an adulterous wife, to receive her once upon
her repentance, but not oftener. Clemens Alexandrinus3

1 Hermes Past. lib. ii. Mandat. iv. n. 1. Debet recipere peccatricem, quae
pcenitentiamfegit, sed non saepe. Servis enim Dei pcenitentia una est.
s Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. cap. xiii. p. '159. Edit. Oxon.

574 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
treads in the same steps, allowing but one repentance after
baptism, and citing the authority of Hermes Pastor for it.
Tertullian, whilst he was a Catholic, allowed with the catho
lics one penance after baptism, which he calls the second,
making the repentance of baptism to be the first, and this
the last. " God," says he,1 " has placed in the porch, or
entrance to the Church, a second repentance, which opens
to those that knock: but now only once, because now a
second time ; never more, because the last was vain and
to no purpose.'' Then describing the whole course of this
public penance, he says again,2 " it is a second penance,
and but one ; which requires so much the more laborious
exercise and trial, because it is a thing allowed us in fiur
greatest exigency and distress." In like manner Origen,3
speaking of the difference between greater and lesser sins,
says, " the former had no place of repentance allowed them
but only once, or very seldom ; whereas those common sins
we fall into almost every day, always admit of repentance,
and are redeemed immediately without intermission." There
are several Canons in the Council of Eliberis to the same
purpose, that relapsers should not be admitted to commu
nion by the benefit of a second repentance. One Canon*
says, " that if any men commit adultery after they have done
penance for idolatry, they shall no more be admitted to
communion, that they may not seem to make a jest of the
Lord's communion." Another orders,5 " that if any of the
faithful, who is under penance for adultery, commit fornica-

1 Tertul. de Pcenit. cap. vii. Collocavit in vestibulo poenitentiam secun-
dam, quae pulsantibus patefaeiat : sed jam semel, quia jam secundo; sed
amplius nunquam, quam proximefrustra. 2 Ibid, cap, ix. Hujus
igitur poenitentiae secundae et unius, quanto in arto negotium est, tautd
operosior probatio est. s Orig. Hom. xv. in Levit. torn. i. p. 174.
In gravioribus criminibus semel tantum, vel raro poenitentiae conceditur lo
cus: ista vero communia, quae frequenter incurrimus, semper poenitentiam
recipiunt, et sine intermissione redimuntur. * Con. Eliber. can. iii.
Si post pcenitentiam fuerint moechati, placuit ulterius non eis dandam esse
communionem, ce lusisse de riominicS communione videantur.
5 Ibid. can. vii. Si quis forte fidelis post lapsum mcechire, post tempora
conslituta, accepts penitentiS, denuo fuerit fornicatus, placuit nee in fine
habere eum communionem.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 575
tion in the time of his penance, he shall not have the com
munion even at his last hour." And a third Canon orders,1
" that if a man, who has been under penance for adultery,
and is admitted to communion in sickness, or danger of im
minent death, shall after his recovery commit adultery again,
he shall no more make a jest of the communion of peace:
that is, not have the privilege of a second penance, to obtain
a second reconciliation or absolution."
Neither was this only the discipline of the three first ages,
but it continued to be the practice for an age or two after:
for St. Ambrose and St. Austin speak of it as still in use in
their time. '•" They who think of doing penance often," says
St. Ambrose,3 " are deservedly reproved, because they grow
wanton against Christ : for if they did penance truly, they
would not think it was to be repeated; because as there is
hut one baptism, so there is but one penance, that is per
formed in public. There is indeed a daily repentance for
sin, but that is for lesser sins, and the other for greater." In
like manner St. Austin says,3 " it was wisely and usefully
ordered, that there should be no room for that publie and
humblest sort of penance in the Church ; lest it should make
the remedy of sin contemptible, and so less useful to the sin
ner." This was the practice of the Roman Church also in
the time of Siricius ; and Innocent and Leo, who commonly
follow his prescriptions. The Decree of Siricius about this
matter runs in these terms : " forasmuch as that tluy, who
after penance return like dogs to their vomit, or swine to
their w allowing in the mire, cannot have the benefit of a
second penance,* we decree, that they shall communicate
1 Con. Eliber. can. xlvii. Si resuscitatus rursiis fuerit moechatus, placuit
eum ulterius nonluderede communione pacis. * Ambros. de,
Pcenitent. lib. ii. cap 10. Merito reprehenduntur, qui saepius agendam
pcenitentiam putant. quia luxuriantur in Christo. Nam si vere agerent poeni
tentiam, iterandam esse non putarent: quia sicut unum baptisma ita una
pcenitentia, quae tamen publice1 agitur. Nam quolidiani nos debet pcenitere
peccati ; sed haec delictorum leviorum, ilia graviorum.
* Aug. Ep. liv. ad Macedon. Caute salubriterque provisum, ut locus illius
humillimae poenitentiae semel in ecclesia concedatur, ne medicina vilis minus
Utilis esset aegrotis, &c. * Siric. Ep. i. ad Himerium, cap. v.
De his, qui, acta pcenitentia, tanquam canes- ac sues, ad vomitus pristinos et
I '

576 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE (BOOK XVIII.
with the faithful in prayer only, and be present at the cele
bration of the eucharist, but not partake of the Lord's feast
at his table ; that by this punishment they may learn to
chastise their errors privately in themselves, and also set
others an example how to abstain from the lusts of unclean
ness. Yet for as much as they fall by the frailty ofthe flesh,
we would have them to be allowed their Viaticum at the last,
and be assisted with the grace of communion, when they are
going to the Lord." It appears also from the Canons of
several Councils in the same age, that such relapsers were
either wholly cast out of the Church, or at least kept back
from the communion all their clays, without being admitted
to the benefit of any formal penance to restore them : as may
be seen in the second Council of Aries1, the Council of
Vannes,2 the first of Tours,3 and the first of Orleans,* but
more especially the third of Toledo, where notice is taken of
the contrary custom beginning to creep into some of the
Spanish Churches, and a strict order is made to correct it by
reviving the ancient discipline of the Church. " We hear,"
say they,4 " that in some of the Spanish Churches penance
is not done according to canon, but after a very base fashion,
that as often as men are pleased to sin, so often they re
quire of the presbyters to be reconciled or absolved: to

ad volutabra redeunt — quia jam suffugium non habent pcenitendi, id duxi-
mus decernendum, ut sola intra ecclesiam fidelibus oratione jungantur; sacris
mysteriorum celebritatibus, quamvis non mereantur, intersint; a dominies
autem mensae convivio segregentur, ut h&c saltern districtione correpti, et
ipsi in se sua errata castigent, et aliis exemplum tribuant, quatenus ab ob-
scoenis cupiditatibus retrahantur. Quibus tamen (quia carnali fragilitate
ceciderunt) viatico munere, cum ad Dominum cceperint proficisci, per com
munionis gratiam volumus subveniri.
1 Con. Arelat. ii. can. 21. " Con. Venetic. can. iii.
3 Con. Turon.i. can. 8. * Con. Aurelian. i. can. 13. llerdense,
ean. v. 5 Con. Tolet. iii. can. 11. Quoniam comperimus per
quasdam Hispaniarum ecclesias, non secundum canonem, sed fcedissime pro
suis peccatis homines agere pcenitentiam, ut quoties peccare libuerit, toties a
presbyteris se reconciliari expostulant: et ideo pro coercenda tam execrabili
praesnmptione id a sancto concilio jubetur, ut secundum formam canonura
antiquoi-um detur pcenitentia.  Hi vero qui ad propria vitia, vel infra
poenitentiae tempus, vel post reconciliationem relabuntur, secundum priorum
canonum severitatem damnentur.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 577
restrain which execrable presumption, the holy Synod ap
points, that penance shall be granted only according to the
form of the ancient Canons: and if any, either during the
time of their penance, or after their reconciliation, relapse
into their old vices, they shall be condemned according to
the severity of former canons." That is, they shall not have
liberty of repeating publie penance toties quoties in the
church. They did not deny men private penance, either
for lesser sins of daily incursion, or for relapses into greater
sins ; but exhorted men to repent in both cases, in hopes of
obtaining mercy and pardon from God by a sincere contri
tion and the diligent exercise of a private repentance. No
confession was taken by the priest in either of these cases :
for the first did not need it, and the second was not allowed
it ; only at their last hour relapsers were admitted to the
communion and peace of the Church, if they had exercised
themselves diligently in all the proper acts of private repent
ance. Sect. 2. — Some Sinners held under a strict Penance all their Lives to the
very Hour of Death.
2. And this leads us to consider another instance of the
great strictness and severity ofthe ancient discipline,, which
was, that for some certain sins men were kept under the
exercise of public penance all their lives, and only absolved
and reconciled at the point of death. The ordinary course
of penance often held men for ten, fifteen, or twenty years
in going through the several stages of repentance : but for
some more heinous and enormous crimes no certain term of
years was limited, but their lives ; and perfect reconciliation
and absolution was only granted them at their last hour, when
imminent danger of death was upon them. Thus the Coun
cil of Eliberis orders,1 that if any one took upon him the
office of a Flamen, or gentile priest, though he did not
offer sacrifice, but only exhibit the usual games or shews to
the people, he should do a seveTe and canonical penance all

' Con. Eliber. can. iii. Item flamines qui non immolaverint, sed munus
tantum dederint, e6 quod se a funestis abstinuerunt sacrificiis, placuit eisin
fine prsastari communionem, acta tamen legitima poenitentifi.
VOL. VI. 2 P

578 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
his life, and only be admitted to communion at the point of
death. The like order is given about consecrated virgins,1
that if any of them committed fornication, they should do
penance all the time of their lives, and only have the com
munion at the hour of death. The Council of Neocaesarea
appoints the same for a woman who marries two brothers,2
that she shall be cast out of communion unto death ; but
at her last hour, to shew clemency toward her, if she
promise upon her recovery to dissolve the marriage, she
shall have the benefit of repentance. The first Coun
cil of Aries inflicts the same punishment upon those that
falsely accuse their brethren,3 that they shall not com
municate to the hour of death. The Council of Ancyra
decrees the like for such married men as are guilty of
bestiality after they are fifty years old,* that they shall not
be received into communion till the end of their lives. The
Council of Valence in Fiance laid the same penalty upon
some that fell into idolatry,5 that they should do penance
to the hour of death, yet not without hopes of remission,
which they were to expect more fully, from God, who was
the donor of it. The Council of Lerida allows the inferior
clergy to do penance for a first offence,6 and regain their
office upon it: but if they return, like dogs, to their vomit,
and as swine to their wallowing in the mire, they are not
only to be deprived of their office, but of the communion to
their last hour. And so Felix the third,7 bishop of Rome,
determined in the case of those African bishops, presbyters

1 Con. Eliber. can. xiii. Si omni tempore vitas suae hujusmodi foeminas
egerint pcenitentiam, placuit eas in fine accipere debere communionem.
s Con. Neocaesar. can. ii. Tvvf/ lav yr))ir]Tai tvo aStXifioig, l%tnSE'us9t>> /iEYpi
Savare, &c. 3 Con. Arelat. i. can. 14. De his qui falso accusant
fratres suos, placuit eos usque ad exitum non communicare.
* Con. Ancyr. can. xvi. Sri ry l^bti/i tov /3in TvyxaviTU"sav TrIS Koivaviac.
* Con. Valentin, an. 374. can. iii. Usque in diem mortis acturi pcenitentiam,
non sine spe tamen remissionis, &c. 6 Con. Ilerdense. can. v.
Si iterato, velut canes ad vomitum, reversi fuerint, &c. non solum dignitate
officii careant, sed etiam sanctam communionem, nisi in exitu, non percipiant.
7 Felic. iii. in Con. Rom. cap. ii. Usque ad exitus sui diem in pcenitentia
jacere convenief; nee orationi non modo fidelium, sed nee catechumeno-
rum omnimodis interesse, quibus communio laica tantum in inorte reddenda
est.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 579
and deacons, who suffered themselves to be rebaptized by
the Arians in the Vandalic persecution : that they continue
under penance to the day of their death ; and neither be
present at the prayers of the faithful, nor the catechumens,
and only be admitted to lay-communion at the point of
death.
Sect. 3. — Such as were absolved upon a Death-bed, were obliged to perform
their ordinary Penance, if they recovered.
3. Another instance of the strictness and severity of the
ancient discipline is visible in the treatment of such peni
tents as were reconciled upon a death-bed. Though they
were admitted to the peace and communion of the Church,
when they were in extreme necessity, and imminent danger
of death, that they might have their Viaticum when they
were about to leave the world: yet if they chanced to re
cover, they were obliged to perform the whole penance,
more or less, whatever it was, which they should have done,
had not such an exigency procured them an absolution.
And this is the only case, in which the ancient Church ever
allowed any absolution to be granted before the penance
was duly and regularly performed. Which being an ex
traordinary case, it is nothing- to those, who think to justify
the same practice now in ordinary cases : but of this more
hereafter. As to the present observation, that penitents
absolved upon a death-bed were, upon their recovery, re
duced to the same state of penance, which they were to have
been under, had not the necessity of sickness, required their
absolution, is evident from the plain testimony of several
councils. The Council of Nice orders such upon their re
covery to be placed among those that communicated in
prayers only.1 That is, in the fourth rank of penitents,
called costanders, where they might stay to hear the prayers
of the faithful, but not partake of the oblation. The fourth
Council of Carthage has two Canons relating to them.
The first says,2 if such a penitent recover, he shall be sub
jected to the ordinary laws of penance, as long as the priest,
who admitted him to penance, shall judge convenient. The
1 Con. Nie. can. xiii. 2 Con. Carth. iv. can. 76.
Si supervixerit, subdatur statutis pcenitentias legibus, quamdiu sacerdos,
qui pcenitentiam dedit, probaverit.
2 p 2

580 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
other,1 that penitents, who in time of sickness receive the
Viaticum of the eucharist, shall not think themselves ab
solved, unless they undergo imposition of hands, if they
chance to recover. That is, the imposition of hands, which
was given to penitents of the third order, called prostrators,
who were obliged to present themselves every day at church,
and kneel down before tho bishop to receive the solemn im
position of hands with the usual penitential prayers and be
nediction. The first Council of Orange more particularly ex
plains the whole matterin thisform:2 '¦' they who are about to
leave the body, when they are doing penance, may commu
nicate without the reconciltatory imposition of hands, which
sort of communion is sufficient for the consolation of a
dying person, according to the decrees of the Fathers, who
call this kind of communion their Viaticum. But if they
survive, they shall stand in the order of penitents, that
they may first, shew forth the necessary fruits of
repentance, and then be received to communion in
the ordinary and regular way, by the reconciliatory
imposition of hands." The council of Epone speaks
much after the same manner :s " that no one should be re
pelled from or by the Church without remedy, or hopes of
pardon, nor the door of returning to pardon be shut against
one that repents and corrects his errors : and if any one be
in imminent danger of death, the time prescribed for his con
demnation or penance shall be relaxed. But if it happens,
that the sick man recovers after he has received his Viati
cum, he must observe and fulfil the time of penance that was

1 Ibid. can. lxxviii. Pcenitentes, qui in infirmitate viaticum eucharistiae ac-
ceperint, non se credant absolutos, sine manus iirpositione, si supervixerint.
s Con.Arausican. i. can 8. Qui recedunt de corpore, pcenitentia accepts,
placuit, sinereconciliatoria manus impositione eos communicare, quod mori-
entis sufficit consolationi secundum definitiones patrum, qui hujusinodi
communionem congruenter viaticum norainaverunt. Quod si supervixerint,
stent in ordine pcenitentium, ut ostensis necessariis pcenitentisB fructibus,
legitimam coinmunionem cum reconciliatorili manus impositione recipiant.
8 Con. Epaunens. can. 36. Ne ullus sine remedio aut spe venios ab ecclesia
repellatur; neve ulli, si aut poenituerit, aut se correxerit, ad veniam redeundi
aditus obslrualur: et si cuiquam forsitan discrimen mortis immi neat, dam
nations constitute temporarelaxentur. Quod si aegrotum, accepto viatico,
revalescere fortasse contingit, statuti temporis spatia observare conveniet.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 581
appointed him." Gregory Nyssen's Canon is much to the
same purpose:1 if anyone be in imminent danger of death,
who has not gone through the whole time appointed for his
penance ; the clemency of the Fathers in that case has de
creed, that he shall not take his long journey (out of the
world) without his Viaticum or provision for it, nor without
partaking of the holy mysteries. But if after participation
he recover from his sickness, he must then continue the
time appointed in that order or station of penitents, in which
he was when this necessity and danger came upon him."
To all these may be added the decree of the Roman Coun
cil under Felix III. Anno 487, which renews the determina
tion of the Nicene Fathers,8 " that if any of those, who had
been admitted to communion before the"fixed time of their
penance was completed, because their life was despaired of
by the physicians, and evident signs of death were upon
them, should happen afterwards to recover, they should
at least continue in the fourth rank of penitents, among
those that communicated only in prayers without the obla
tion, till the full term of their penance was ended."
Sect. 4.— Some Sinners denied Communion at their last Hour.
But some sinners were yet more severely handled : for
they were denied communion to the very last, and suffered
to go out of the world without any manner of reconciliation.
This discipline was generally used at first toward the three
great sins of idolatry, adultery, and murder, which as learned
men agree,3 continued almost to the time of Cyprian.
Cyprian himself assures us,* that many of his predecessors

1 Nyssen. Ep. ad Letoium, can. v. s Con. Rom. can. iv.
Qudd si ante praefinitum poenitentiae tempus desperatusa. medicis, aut evi-
dentibus mortis pressus indiciis, recepta quisquam communionis gratia
convalescat; servemus in eo quod Nicenicanones ordinaverunt, ut habeatur
inter eos qui in oratione sola communicant, donee impleatur spatium temporis
eidera praestitutum. 3 Vid. Albaspin. Observat. lib. ii. cap. vii.
ad. 20. Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. i. cap. xvii. n. 1. Fell. Notl in Cypr.
Ep. viii. p. 17. * Cypr. Ep. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 110. Et quidem
apud Antecessores nostros quidam de Episcopis istic in provincia nostra
dandam pacem moechis non putaverunt, et in totum pcenitentia; locum contra
adultcria clauserunt.

582 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
absolutely refused to admit adulterers to communion at their
very last hour. And though this rigour was abated by
general agreement toward penitents in his time, yet they
still continued to deny communion to the very last to such
apostates, as persisted obstinate and impenitent all their
lives, and only desired reconciliation when the pangs of
death were upon them. "They," says he,1 " who do no pen
ance, nor ever testify any sorrow for their sin from their
heart by manifest professions of lamentation, though they
begin to deprecate and sue for pardon when infirmity and
the danger of death is upon them, such we think fit to de
bar absolutely from all hopes of communion and peace : be
cause it is not repentance for their sins, but only the appre
hension and terror of approaching death that compels them
to ask pardon : and he is not worthy to receive consolation
at his death, who would not beforehand consider, that he
must shortly die." We find this rule concerning apostates
some time after renewed by the first Council of Aries, where
a decree was passed, " that such apostates,2 as never present
ed themselves to the Church, nor sought to do any manner
of penance, but at last, when they were seized with an infir
mity, ^desired to have the communion, should inthat case be
debarred from it, unless they recovered, and brought forth
fruits worthy of repentance." And Innocent, bishop of Rome3,
plainly says, this was the primitive custom for the three

1 Cypr. Ep. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 111. Poenitentiam non agentes, nee do-
lorem delictorum suorum toto corde et manifesta lamentationis suae pro
fessione testantes, prohibendos omnino censuimus a spe communicationis et
pacis, si in infirmitate et periculo coeperint deprecari : quia rogare illos non
'delicti poenitentia, sed mortis urgentis admonitio compellit : nee dignus est
in morte accipere solatium, qui se non cogitavit esse moriturum.
8 Con. Arelat. i.ean. 23. De his qui apostatant, et nunquam sead ecclesiam
repraesentant, nee quidem poenitentiam agere quaerunt, et postea in infirmi
tate arrepti petunt communionem, placuit, eis non dandam communionem,
nisi revaluerint, et egerint dignos fructus pcenitentiie.
s Innoc. Ep. iii. ad Exuperium, cap. ii. Et hoc
quaesitum est, quid de his observari debeat, qui post baptismum omni tem
pore intemperantiae et voluptatibus dediti, in extremo fine vitas suae pceni
tentiam simul et reconciliationem communionis exposcunt. De his obser-
vatio prior, durior; posterior, interveniente misericordia, inclinatior est.
Nam consueiudo prior tenuit, ut concederetur eis pcenitentia, sed communio
negaretur.  Sed postquam Dominus noster pacem ecclesiis sui reddidit,
jam depulsoterrore communionem dari abeuntibus placuit, &c.

CHAP. IV.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 583
first ages of persecution : " If any one after baptism spent
his whole life in intemperance and pleasure, and in the end
of his days desired penance and the reconciliation of com
munion, they only admitted him to penance, but absolutely
denied him communion. For in those days persecutions
being very frequent, lest the easiness of obtaining commu
nion should make men secure of reconciliation, and retard
their returning from sin, communion was justly denied them,
and only penance allowed them, that they might not be de
prived of the whole : the consideration of the times made
their remission or reconciliation more difficult to be ob
tained : but after the Lord had granted peace to his Church,
and the terror of persecution was over, then it seemed good
to the Church to receive all such to 'communion, when
they were, going out of the world, and for the mercy
of the Lord to grant it to them as their Viaticum or
provision for their journey, lest we should seem to follow
the asperity and hardness of Novatian the heretic, who
denied men pardon for greater sins committed after bap
tism." The Canons of the Council of Eliberis do abun
dantly confirm this observation made by Pope Innocent
upon the preceding ages of persecution. For there are at
least twenty Canons in that Council, which deny commu
nion to the very last to several sorts of sinners, whose crimes
were either doubled and tripled, or single crimes of a more
flagrant scandal and heinous provocation. Thus the first
Canon determines1, in the case of voluntary idolaters and
apostates, who without any compulsion went of their own
accord to the temple, and offered sacrifice : this being a
more heinous and capital offence, than bare sacrificing by
the violence and force of torture, it is ordered, that such
apostates shall not have the communion even at their last
hour. The next Canon2 inflicts the same punishment upon

1 Con. Eliber. can. i. Placuit, ut quicunque post fidem baptismi salutaris,
adulta aetate, ad templum idololatraturus accesserit, et fecerit, cjuod est cri
men capitaie, nee in fine eum communionem accipere.
a Ibid. can. ii. Flamines qui post fidem lavacri et regencrationis sacrifi-
caverunt: co quod grminavcrint scclcra, acccdcntc liomicidio, yd tripli-

584 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
sucfTidolaters as are guilty of a complication of crimes: as
when a christian takes upon him the office of a Flamen, or
Heathen high-priest, and therein adds to his idolatry either
adultery or murder. So if a man kills another by sorcery ;
because there is idolatry joined with murder, he is not to
have the communion even at the hour of death.1 If a man
whilst he is doing penance for idolatry or adultery, relapses
into the same,2 or any other great crime, this repetition of
his crime in such a case debars him from communion at his
last hour. Another Canon orders the like severity to be
used towards women,3 who without cause forsake their own
husbands, and are married to other men. And the same is
determined in case a woman is married to a man,* whom she
knows to have unlawfully divorced himself from a former
wife: both these sorts are denied communion to the very
last. Another Canon subjects all panders and promoters
of uncleanness to the same penalty,5 whether it be a father
or mother, or any other Christian that exercises this abomi
nable trade : because they sell the bodies of others, or
rather their own, they are not to have communion even at
their last hour. The same is determined in the case of a
virgin dedicated to God :6 if she commits fornication, and
continues in her uncleanness without reflecting upon what
she has done, there is no absolution for her in her last
minutes. As neither for the man,7 that marries his daughter

caverint facinus, cohaerente moechia, placuit eos nee in fine accipere com
munionem. 1 Con. Eliber. can.vi. Si quis maleficio interficiat alterum, eo quod
sine idololatria perficere scelus non potuit, nee in fine impertiendam esse
illi communionem. 2 Ibid. can. iii. etvii. See these Canons
before, sect. i. 3 Ibid. can. viii. Foeminaa, quae, nulla praece-
dente causa, reliquerint viros suos, et se copulaverint alteris, nee in fine
accipiant communionem. * Can. x. Si fuerit fidelis, qua? ducitur
ab eo qui uxorem inculpatam reliquit, et cum scierit ilium habere uxorem
quam sine causa reliquit, placuit, huic nee in fine dandam esse communio
nem. 6 Con. Eliber. can. xii. Mater, vel parens, vel quolibet
fidelis, si lenocinium exercuerit, eo quod alienum vendiderit corpus, vel
potius suum, placuit, eas nee in fine accipere communionem.
6 Ibid. can. xiii. Virgines, qua; se Deo dicaverint, si pactum perdiderint
vitginitatis, atque eidem libidini servieriut, non intelligentes quod amiserint,
placuit, nee in fine eis dandam esse communionem.
' Ibid. can. xvii. Si qui forte sacerdotibus idolorum filias suas junxerint,
placuit, nee in fine eis dandam esse communionem.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 585
to any idol-priest. Nor for any bishop, presbyter, or dea
con, that commits adultery,1 whilst he is actually in the
ministry, both because of the scandal, and also the wicked
ness and profaneness of the crime itself. So if a woman
commits adultery in her husband's absence, and murders her
infant,2 sbe is not to have communion at the very last, be
cause she doubles her crime. In like mffnner a woman is to
be treated,3 that lives in adultery all her life with another
,man. And also any clergyman,* that knows his wife to be
guilty of adultery, and does not immediately put her away ;
lest they, who ought to be examples of good conversation to
others, should seem to teach others the way to sin. The same
punishment is awarded to any one,* that commits incest by
marrying his wife's daughter by a former husband. And to
such as are conscious and consenting to their wive's adultery.6
And to all that commit sodomy with boys ;7 and to women
who commit adultery with any man, and afterwards marry8
another husband and not the man who defiled them. If any
one turn informer against his brethren, so that they suffer9
banishment, confiscation, or death by his information, he is
not to have communion at his last hour. If any one accuse a
bishop, presbyter, or deacon of false crimes,10 and do not
make out what he alledges against them, he also is to be
denied communion to the very last. I have represented
these things at large, both to evidence the thing now
asserted, and also to shew what sort of heinous crimes
those were, for which this great severity of discipline
was used toward men at their last hour. Some learned
persons are offended at this Council for its extreme
severity and rigour. Auxilius heretofore brought the11
charge of Novatianism against Hosius and the Council
together. And Suicerus asserts,12 that the orthodox

1 Con. Eliber. can. xviii. Episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi, si in ministerio
positij detecti fuerint quod sint moechati, placuit, et propter scandalum, et prop
ter profanum crimen, nee in fine eos communionem accipere debere.
s Ibid, can.lxiii. s Can. lxiv. 4 Can. lxv. s Can. lxvi.
6 Can. lxx. ' Can. lxxi. 8 Can. lxxii.
9 Can. lxxiii. 10 Can. lxxv. " Auxil. de Ordinal.
Formosi, lib. i. cap. 12 ct 14. lib. ii. cap. r.'3. '" Suicer. Thesaur.
Eccles. Voce, MernVoiu, p. 357.

586 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
Church always taught, that lapsers were to be received
into communion upon their repentance. Which in effect is
to bring the charge of Novatianism against this council, and
to make it no part of the orthodox Church. But then the
difficulty will be how to clear Cyprian and the Council of
Aries from the same charge of Novatianism. For it is plain
they were in the , same sentiments as to what concerned
apostates, who neglected penance to the hour of death :
and not only they, but the great Council of Sardica, which
restored Athanasius, will be involved in the same condem
nation. For there is a Canon in that Council, which is as
peremptory in this manner as any in the Council of Eliberis.
The Canon orders,1 that if any bishop out of ambition or
covetousness procure himself to be removed from a lesser
city to a greater, without the approbation of a synod, he
shall not be admitted even to lay-communion at his last
hour. So that if this were Novatianism, there is no apology
to be made for this Council, no more than for that of Elibe
ris ; the decrees of both Councils being the very same, and
of equal severity toward extraordinary offenders. The
Novatians indeed sometimes laid hold of this practice in the
Church, as an handle to justify their own unwarrantable pro
ceedings ag-ainst all great sins committed after baptism:
they said, they only treated the laity, as the Catholics did the
clergy, whom for several crimes they debarred from all com
munion to the very last. For so Socrates tells us,2 Ascle-
piades the Novatian bishop argued with Atticus, bishop of
Constantinople : when Atticus acknowledged, that commu
nion might reasonably be denied even at tho point of death
to such as sacrificed to idols, and that he himself had some
times done so ; Asdepiades replied, there are many other
sins unto death, as the scripture calls them, besides sacrific
ing to idols, for which ye shut the clergy out of the Church,
and we the laity, remitting them over to God alone for their
pardon.

1 Con. Sardic. can. ii. Mijot iv nf teXei Xa'iicrjg y«i< d^iSaOai Koivaviag.
' Socrat. lib. vii. cap. 25.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 587

Sect. 5. — How this may be vindicated and cleared from the Charges of
Novatianism.
But this was only a sophistical argument and false apology
for the Novatian schism; which though it has imposed upon
many learned men, and driven them to strange difficulties in
explaining- many of the ancient Canons, and obliged them
to put a forced and unnatural sense upon plain words, for
fear they should seem to encourage the same error as No
vatian held : yet the fallacy will easily be discerned by a
right stating the matter, and setting things in a proper light
before the reader. The question between the Church and
the' Novatians was not, whether communion at the hour of
death might be denied to some sort of sinners: for in this
they both agreed, and the practice of the Church in many
cases was no less severe toward some great and flagrant
crimes, or a complication of crimes, than was that of the
Novatians, as evidently appears from what has been already
discoursed. But the question was about the ministerial
power of absolution, or admitting penitent sinners to the
peace and communion of the Church again, after they had
lapsed or fallen into any great sin after baptism. The
Novatians stifly maintained, that the Church had no such
ministerial power ofthe keys committed to her ; but that all
such sinners were for ever to be excluded and kept out of
her communion; and that if she admitted any of them again,
her communion was polluted and profaned by their conta
gion : and upon this principle they made a separation from
the Church, as infected by the communion of sinners. The
Church on the other hand asserted her own just right and
power, that by the commission ofthe keys from Christ, she
had the power to loose as well as bind ; to receive peni
tents into the Church upon their reformation, as well as cast
out flagitious men for their notorious transgressions: and
though in some extraordinary cases, either where the crimes
were very heinous and numerous, or where for want of time
she could not have sufficient evidence of men's repentance,
when they continued, in their apostasy and impenitency till
they were threatened by death, she sometimes suffered such
men to go out of the world without reconciliation and com-

583 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK 'XVIII.
munion ; yet she did not this for want of power to receive
sinners into her communion, but because she judged it more
proper to let her censures continue upon such to the very
last, to be an example and terror to others. So that though
the practice of the Church and the Novatians was in some
cases the same, yet their principles were very different, and
vastly wide of o"ne another. The Novatians wholly denied
this power to the Church, and made a schism upon it: the
Church maintained her own just power, and used it with dis
cretion, sometimes one way, and sometimes another, as she
judged most expedient in her own wisdom for the benefit
and edification of sinners, without dividing communion
upon this point among the governors of the Church, what
ever way they thought fit to practise. This is what Cyprian
observes chiefly against Novatian,1 in the case of admitting
and not admitting adulterers to communion. Some of our
predecessors, says he, in this province were of opinion, that
peace was not to be granted to adulterers, and therefore they
wholly-shut the door of repentance against adultery ; yet
they did not depart from the college of their fellow-bishops
upon this account, or break the unity of the Catholic Church
by any obstinate stiffness in their censure ; so as that be
cause peace was granted by others to adulterers, therefore
they who would not grant it, should make a separation from
the Church. But the bond of concord remaining entire, and
the mystical unity of the Catholic Church continuing undi
vided, every bishop managed and directed his own acts of
discipline as he thought proper, being to give an account
of his resolutions and management to the Lord. It appears
from hence, that the dispute between the Church and Nova
tians was not barely about practice, but about principles and
the power of the Church, in the use and management of
the keys of discipline: and therefore though the Church
sometime did the same thing that the Novatians did in re-

1 Cypr. Ep.lv. ad Antonian. p. 11C. Et quidem apud antecessores nos
tros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacem moechis
non putaverunt, et in totum pcenitentiae locum contra adulteria clauserunt;
non tamen a coepiscnporum suorum collegio recesserunt, aut catholicae
ecclesiae unitatem vel duritia' vel censura; misc nbstinalionc rtiperunt, &c.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 589
fusing communion to some sinners even at the point of
death, yet she was no ways chargeable with Novatianism,
because she acted upon different views and principles, and
only made use of her just power in a discretionary way, to
extend or contract her censures, as she judged most expe
dient for the benefit and edification of the whole community,
or any particular member of it. And thus, I find, many
learned men, such as Albaspinaeus,1 bishop Beveridge,2 and
cardinal Bona,3 have accounted for this seeming difficulty
in the Church's practice, which has so tortured the wits of
other men for want of understanding wherein the true nature
of the Novatian heresy consisted : some fancying, that the
Fathers in and before the Council of Eliberis were down
right Novatians; others, that they allowed men reconcilia
tion, and peace, and absolution, but only denied them the
communion of the euchaiist at their last hour: whereas
nothing can be plainer, than that they denied them not only
the communion, as it denotes the eucharist, but all manner
of ministerial reconciliation, pardon, absolution, and read-
mission into the society of the faithful.
Sect. 6. — The Rigour abated in after Ages without any Reflection on the
preceding Practice.
This rigour indeed was abated in the practice of the fol
lowing ages, but without the least reflection on those that
went before them : because they were sensible, it was at
the Church's liberty to order this part of discipline accord
ing to her own prudence, and act as the circumstances of
times and the state of affairs required ; judging the times
of peace to be different from the times of persecution, and
that some abatement was to be made in this matter, when
all the world was become Christian. The later Councils
therefore are not so stiff in requiring the execution of the
ancient Canons in this particular, but allow every penitent
communion at their last hour, though they would not un
dertake to assure them what effect an absolution in such

1 Albaspin. Observat. lib. ii. cap. 21. 3 Bevereg. Not. ad
can. viii. Con. Nie. p. 68. 3Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. can. 17.
n. 3.

590 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
extremity should have before God. The Canons are very
numerous upon this head: it will be sufficient to mention
one or two as a specimen of all the rest. The Council of
Agde speaks in general terms without exception:1 "no
penitents are to be denied their Viaticum, or provision for
their journey, at the point of death." The first Council of
Orange as universally,' making no distinction :9 " whoever ac
cept of penance, when they depart from the body, let them
be received to communion ; but without the solemn imposi
tion of hands, which is only to be given them, if they re
cover, upon performing their just penance in the Church."
The fourth Council of Carthage orders,3 that they shall have
both the solemn imposition of hands, and the eucharist also,
even though they had lost their senses or were struck dumb
with their disease, if any about them could testify that they
desired penance in their sickness. And this was agreeable
to the rule made in the great Council of Nice,* that no one
at the point of death should be deprived of his final and
most necessary Viaticum, the eucharist or oblation, as it is
explained in the close of the Canon, where the bishop is
made judge of his repentance. Upon this ground Synesius5
says, he never let any one go out ofthe world bound with the
bonds of anathema, if they desired absolution: only if they
recovered, he reserved them to the disposition of his metro
politan of Alexandria. And this confirms the remark made
in general by Pope Innocent,6 upon the different practices of
the Church in times of persecution and times of peace. The

1 Con. Agathen. can. xv. Viaticum omnibus in morte positis non est
negandum. 2 Con. Arausic. i. can. 3. Qui recedunt de corpore,
pcenitentia accepta, placuit, sine reconciliatoriS manus impositione com
municare, quod morientis sufficit consolationi, &c. s Con. Carth. iv.
can. lxxvi. Qui pcenitentiam in infirmitate petit, si casu dum ad eum
sacerdos invitatus venit, oppressus infirmitate obmutuerit, vel in phrenesin
versus fuerit, dent testimonium qui eum audierunt, et aecipiat poenitentiam;
et si continuo creditur moriturus, reconcilietur per mantis impositionem, et
ori ejus infundatur eucharistia. * Con. Nicren. can. xiii. "Ei
Tig i£oSevoi, tov rtXivTaitt k, uvayxaiOTarH tyotia pj} cnro^EpETtrSai.
* Synes. Ep. lxvii. ad Theophilum, p. 252. Mrjtcie yap avoBavoi ScSeitivog
*/">'¦ 6 Innoc. Ep. iii. ad Exuperium, cap. ii. De his obser-
vatio prior, durior: posterior, interveniente misericordia, inclinatior est,
&c.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

591

former observation was more severe, the latter more indul
gent. In ancient times many sinners were denied commu
nion at the hour of death: but in his time they granted pen
ance to all, and admitted them to communion upon a death
bed repentance. Only they did not think this so safe, as the
performance of a regular penance, in their life time : and
therefore they would not pronounce any thing confidently of
their condition. There goes an ancient homily under the
name of St. Austin, and it is also attributed to St. Ambrose,
where this matter is thus delivered : " if a man repents at his
last hour, and is reconciled, and so dies, I amnot secure,1 that
this man goes hence securely: I can admit him to penance,
but I can give him no security. Do I say, he shall be damn
ed'? I do not say it ; but neither do I say he shall be saved.
What then do I say % I know not, I presume not, I promise
not. For 1 know not the will of God. Would you free your
self from all doubt, and avoid that which is uncertain "? re
pent whilst you are in health, and you will be secure when
your last day finds you : because you repent in a time when
you had power to sin : but if you then only begin to repent,
when you can sin no longer, it is not so much you that for
sake your sins, as your sins forsake you." By all this it
plainly appears that the Church used a liberty of discretion
in treating sinners of the first rank, either with severity or
tenderness, as she judged expedient for the ends of disci
pline, or the benefit and edification of the sinner.
Sect. 7. — What Liberty was allowed to Bishops in imposing Penance,
and exacting proper Satisfaction from Sinners. Some Sinners allowed
to do Penance twice.
Indeed we may observe that a great latitude and liberty
was allowed to bishops, who were the prime ministers of
discipline, to render it more rigorous or easy, as they
thought fit to regulate the exercise of it in their own discre
tion. For though it was necessary in general for sinners to
demonstrate their repentance to the Church, in order to give

1 Aug. Horn. xii. ex 1. tom. x. p. 194.. Agens pcenitentiam ad ultimum,
et reconciliatus, si securus hinc exeat, ego non sum securus.  Pceniten
tiam dare possum, securitatem dare non possum, &c. Vid. Ambros Exhor-
tat. ad Pcenitent.

502

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.

her satisfaction, and gain themselves re-admission ; yet the
method of doing this was not so precisely prescribed, but
that bishops had power to add to, or abate something in the
measures of it. Therefore though the general custom was
to allow sinners to do public penance but once in the
Church, yet there are some instances, in the most strict and
primitive ages, of sinners being admitted twice to this pri
vilege. For Irenseus says,1 Cerdon, the heretic, more than
once made confession of his heresy. Which we are to un
derstand of his doing penance twice for his errors by making
a public recantation of them. Tertullian says the same of
Valentinus, and Marcion,2 that they were once and again
cast out of the Church for their turbulent curiosity in cor
rupting the brethren, before they broke out into their last
dissention, when they scattered the poison of their doctrines
among the people. And yet after that Marcion did penance,
and was to have been received into the communion of the
Church again, upon condition, that he should bring back
those, whom he had led into perdition; which he intended
to do, but death prevented him. It is noted also by Socrates3
concerning St. Chrysostom, that though a synod of bishops
had decreed, that lapsers should only be admitted once to
do public penance, yet in his homilies he was used to tell
men, they should do it a thousand times, if occasion re
quired, and be reeeived to communion. Which bold doc
trine displeased many of his friends, and Sisinius the No
vation bishop wrote a book against it. After this a Council
was held at Constantinople, Anno 42,6 or 427, under ano
ther Sisinius the Catholic bishop, one of St. Chrysostom's
successors, against the Massalian heretics, wherein it was
decreed, that because they had often relapsed after doing
penance, they should be admitted to do penance no more,

1 Iren. lib. iii. cap. 4. 2 Tertul. de Praescript. cap. 30. Ob in-
quietam sempef eorum curiositatem, qua fratres quoque vitiabant, semel et
iterum ejecti  novissime in perpetuum discidium relegati, venena doc-
trinarum suarum disseminaveruiit. Postmodum Marcion poenitentiam con-
fessus, cum conditioni data sibi occurrit, ita pacem recepturus, si caeteros
quoque quos perditioni erudisset, ecclesia? restitueret, morte praeventus est.
3 Soernt. lib. vi. cap. 21.

CHAP. IV.j CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 593
though they made never so many solemn professions of re
penting. The synodical epistle is recorded in Photius,1 from
whence we learn, that relapsers at this time were allowed to
do penance again, though the Council thought fit to deny
the Massalian heretics the privilege any longer, because
they had so often abused it.

Sect. 8. — Bishops had also Power to moderate the Term of Penance
upon just Occasion.
Another instance of the power of bishops in this matter,
was the liberty which the carions themselves grarited them
to moderate the term of penance, and shorten it, if they Ob
served any extraordinary degree of zeal and sedulity in any
penitents, that might deserve their indulgence and commi
seration. The Council of Nice, determining the term of pe
nance for such as fell into idolatry,2 says, they shall be
three years hearers, and ten years prostrators, before they
were admitted to communicate in prayers with the people :
but if any were more than ordinarily diligent in expressing
their concern and tears, and bringing forth good works, the
true fruits of repentance, it should be in the bishop's power
to deal more gently and mildly with them, — dvOpwrrortpov
ti irepi avrwv fSsXtvo-ao-Scu, — and bring them to communicate
in prayers sooner. The like order is given by the Council
of Ancyra3, that bishops shall have power, upon examina
tion and trial ofthe penitents' manner of behaviour and con
version, either to shew them favour by shortening the time
of penance, or otherwise to add to it at his discretion, —
V (jxXavOpunrsvtgSrai, tj irXiiova irpocmOivai ypovov. So St.
Basil says,* he that has the power of binding and loosing,
may lessen the time of penance to a penitent that shews
great contrition. And Chrysostom in answer to some, who
complained of the length of penance, that it continued a

' Phot. Biblioth. cod. 52. * Con. Nie. can. 12. 8 Con,
Ancyr. can. v. * Basil, can. lxxiv.
2 Q

594 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
year, or two, or three, says, I require not the continuance of
time,1 but the correction of the soul. Demonstrate your
contrition, demonstrate your reformation, and all is done.
The Council of Lerida very expressly :9 "let it remain in the
power of the bishop either to shorten the suspension of the
truly contrite, or to segregate the negligent a longer time
from the body of the Church." And the great Council of
Chalcedon leaves it entirely in the hands of every bishop
in his respective Church,3 to shew favour to such penitents
at his own discretion.
Sect. 9. — And this was the true ancient Notion of an Indulgence.
And this is what some ofthe Ancients call an indulgence;
which was not heretofore any pretended power of delivering
souls from the pains of purgatory, by virtue of a stock of
merits, or works of supererogation, which they of the
Church of Rome call now the Church's treasure, of which
the pope is become the sole dispenser: but anciently an
indulgence was no more than this power, which every
bishop had, of moderating the canonical punishments, which
in a course of penance were inflicted upon sinners, so that
if the bishop saw any one to be a zealous and earnest peni
tent, he had liberty to shorten the time of his penance, that
is, grant him a relaxation of some of his penitential exer
cises, and admit him sooner than others to communion. This
was the true ancient notion of an indulgence. And that it
was so, we may learn from one of the epistles of Pope Vigi-
lius, who writing to a certain bishop concerning some per
sons, who were under penance for suffering themselves to
be re-baptised by the Arians, tells him,* that it was left to
1 Chrys. Horn. xiv. in. 2. Cor. c. 646. * Con. Ilerden. can. v. Maneat in
potestate pontificis, vel veraciter afflictos non diii suspendere, vel desidiosos
prolixiore tempore ab ecclesias corpore segregare. sCon. Chalced. can. xvi.
^QpicajiEV ti EXEivryv aiiSfEvriav rijg ett' avrdlg tpiXavBphiTTiagTbv KUT&Toirov
hiriaico7rov. See Martin. Bracarens. Capitula Graec. Can. cap. lxxxi. Conversa-
tio et fides pcenitentis compendiat tempus. * Vigil. Ep. ii. ad Eleutherium.
cap. iii. In aestimatione fraternitatis tua?, aliorumque pontificum per suas
dioeceses relinquatur, ut si qualitas et pcenitentis devotio fuerit approbata,
indulgentiae quoque remedio sit vicina.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 595
his own judgment, and the judgment of other bishops in
their respective dioceses, if they approved the quality and de
votion of any penitents, to grant them the benefit of an in
dulgence, that is, a relaxation of their penitential exercises,
or a speedier admission to communion.
Sect. 10.— Which was sometimes granted at the Intercession ofthe Martyrs,
or the Instance of the civil Magistrate.
And this was sometimes granted at the intercession of the
martyrs in prison, of which there are several examples in
Cyprian ; and sometimes at the instance of the civil magis
trate. For St. Austin tells us,1 that as bishops were used to
intercede for criminals in the civil courts, so the magistrates
sometimes interceded for penitents in the ecclesiastical.
And he uses this as an argument to a certain magistrate to
induce him to shew mercy to an offender. If you have li
berty to intercede with us for the mitigation of an ecclesias
tical censure, why may not the bishop intercede against
your sword, when our sword is only drawn to make the man
live better, but yours that he may not live at all \ This sort
of indulgences therefore had no respect to the punishments
of the next world, but only to the mitigation of ecclesiasti
cal punishment in this : which is ingenuously acknowledged
by Cassander,2 and several other learned Romanists, some
of which have undergone the censures of the Roman inqui
sitors for their over liberal concessions. Particularly Poly-
dore Virgil is put into the Index Expurgatorius for saying,3
that the use of indulgences is no older than the time of
Gregory the Great ; and Franciscus Polygranus for assert
ing,* that every bishop of divine Tight has power to grant in-
1 Aug. Ep. 54. ad Macedonium, p. 93. Si vobis fas est ecclesiasticam
correptionem intercedendo mitigare, quomodo episcopus vestro gladio non
debet intercedere, cum ilia exeratur, ut in quem exeritur bene vivat, iste
ne vivat ? s Cassa'nd. Consultat. Art. xii. p. 103. Joan
Roffensis. cont. Luther, art. xviii. Polydor. Virgil, de Inventor Rerum.
lib. viii. cap. 1. Alphons. a. Castro, advers. Haeres. lib. viii. p. 572.
8 Index Libror. Prohib. et Expurgand. p. 853. Madrit. 1667.
* Index Expurg. p. 97. Salmur." 1601 . Ex Fr. Polygrani Assertionibus quo-
rundam ecclesias doginatum. Foi. 68. deleatur glossa marginalis, quas ait
dejuredivino quilibet sacerdos posset dare indulgentias.
2 q 2

596 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
dulgences, with some assertions of the like nature ; which
agree very well with the true ancient notion of an indul
gence, as it has been now explained, but will not comport
with the Pope's sole claim and pretence to this power, or
any other innovations in the modern practice. But this only
by the way: I now return to the ancient Church.
Sect. 11.— Bishops had also Powerto alter the Nature of the Penalty in some
Measure, as well as the Term of it.
Where we may observe further, that bishops had power
to grant indulgence, not only by contracting the term of
penance, but also in some measure by altering or lessening
the nature and quality of the punishment itself. Of which
we have a plain evidence in the Council of Ancyra,1 where,
in the case of deacons, who lapsed into idolatry, and after
wards recovering stood firm in a second engagement, it is
ordered, that they may retain the honour of deacons, but
not any part of their sacred service, either in ministering
the bread or the cup, or in performing the office of the
public directors in the church : yet the bishops should have
power, if they found them very diligent, humble, and meek,
to grant them more or less of their office, as they judged
convenient ; which shews, that a great deal in this whole
matter was left to the bishops' discretion, to make the exer
cise of penance more or less severe, as well in the degrees
of punishment as in point of time, according to the disposi
tion and behaviour of the repenting sinner.
Sect. 12. — What the Ancients mean by the Term Legitima Pamitentia.
And this explains to us a term or phrase which often
occurs in the writings of the Ancients, especially in
Cyprian2 and the Council of Eliberis,3 and where they re
quire, that penitents should perform " Pamitentiam legiti-
1 Con. Ancyr. can. 2. * Cypr. Ep. 54Tal. 57. ad. Cornel.
p. 116. Ep. 55, ad Antonian, p. 108. s Con. Eliber. can.
3, 5, 14, 72, 76.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 597
mam, plenum, et justam, a legal, full, and just penance."
Some understand by this, that they should fulfil the whole
term or time of penance prescribed by the Canons ; others,
that they should not only fulfil the time, but regularly go
through all the several degrees of penance, as mourners,
hearers, prostrators, and co-standers, before they were re
ceived to communion. But neither of these hit the true
meaning of this ancient phrase, which respects neither the
time of penance nor the orders of penitents, but the mind
and qualifications of men acting sincerely and bond fide in
their repentance ; and expressing* their hearty sorrow for sin
by weeping, and mourning, and fasting, and almsdeeds, and
charity, and an entire reformation ; which are proper indica
tions of a penitent mind, and such as might incline the
bishop to shew them some favour and indulgence, by shorten
ing the time of their penance, notwithstanding which it
might be called a just and full repentance, as Albaspinams1
rightly explains it.

Sect. 13. — What is meant by the Phrase inter Hyemantes orare.
There is one phrase more occurring in some of the
ancient Canons, which may need a little explication in this
place, because it relates to the severity of the ancient disci
pline, which we are now considering. The Council of
Ancyra, speaking of those, who commit uncleanness with
beasts,3 or draw others into the same sin (being spiritual
lepers, and infecting others with their contagion), says, they
shall pray with the XufiaZo/utvoi, or Hyemantes ; which de
notes some extraordinary punishment, but of what sort is
not very easy to determine, because learned men are not
well agreed what the word Xufia^ofiivoi properly means.
The old translators of the Greek Canons commonly under-

1 Albasp. Observat. lib. ii. cap. 30. It. Not. in Can. 3 Con. Eliber.
Con. Ancyr. can 17. Tac dXoyEvffafiEvag Kj XtTrp&g ovrag, tjtol XETrpiouav-
rac, TUTtsc irpoa'tTa^avri ayia avvotog tig rsg X«/*a?ofiEi'ODf Ev^tirSai.

598 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
stand it of energumens, or demoniacs, such as were vexed
with unclean spirits, and, as it were, tossed by them in a
tempest. Dionysius Exiguus renders it, " Qui spiritu peri-
clitantur immundo, vexed with an unclean spirit." The
other translation of Isidorus Mercator has it, " Qui tempes-
tatejactantur, qui a nobis energumeni intelliguntur ,— those
that are tossed in a tempest, by whom we understand ener
gumens." And Martin Bracarensis, in his collection of the
Greek Canons,1 renders it " Dcemoniosos, demoniacs." And
that which gives some probability to this interpretation is,
that the word XtifiaZofitvot is so used and expounded by
many Greek writers. In the prayer for the whole state of
the Church, and all orders in it, related by the author of the
Constitutions,3 there is one petition, " virip tojv xujxaZouivoiv
viro rov dWorpiov, for those who are tossed by the enemy,"
that is, energumens vexed with the evil spirit. And so Cyril3
of Alexandria uses the same phrase for those, that were
possessed with a wicked spirit. As also the ancient com
mentators,* Maximus upon Dionysius, and Alexis Aristinus
upon the Canons,5 and the modern Greeks in their Eucho-
logium,6 where there is a prayer for the " XufiaZ6y.tvoi wd
TrvtvuaTOJv dKaSdprwv, for those that are tossed or tormented
with unclean spirits." Upon the credit of which autho
rities Bishop Beveridge concludes,7 that praying among the
XtifioXofiivoi or Hyemantes in the Council of Ancyra denotes
the penitents praying among the Energumens, or those that
were vexed with unclean spirits. And so Osiander, in his
notes upon the Council of Ancyra,8 and Mr. Dodwel,9 in
his observations upon Cyprian, who thinks the word Clido-
meni, in one of Cyprian's Epistles, is but a corruption from

1 Martin. Bracar. Collect. Canonum. cap. 82. Oportet tales inter daemoni-
osos orare, al. ordinare. 2 Constit. lib. viii. cap 12.
' Cyril, in Esai. xiii. p. 544. XEi/ja£6/tEv<H biro nvEVfiarog TrovijpS.
* Maxim, in Dionys. Hierarch. Eccles. cap 6. 6 Alex. Aristin.
in can. 17. Con. Ancyr. 6 Eucholog. Goar. p. 724.
7 Bevereg. Not. in Can. 1 1. Con. Nie. n. iv. p. 72. 8 Collect.
Canonum. Witebergas. 1614, 4to. 9 Dodwel Dissert. 1. in Cyprian,
p. 4.

CHAP. IV.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 599
Clydonizomeni, YXvlwvit,6\x.tvoi, which is of the same import
and signification with XeiuaZofxtvoi, denoting what the Latins
call Maniaci and Lymphatici, persons possessed by an evil
spirit, as he shews out of some passages of Amphilochius1
and St. Chrysostom, which support his conjecture. Other
learned men think the XtifiaZofuvoi, or Hyemantes, were
such penitents as for the monstrous greatness of their
crimes were net only expelled out of the communion of the
Church, but cast out of the very Atrium or courts and
porch of the Church, and put to do penance in the open air,
where they stood exposed to the inclemency of all weathers
whatsoever. This opinion is embraced and defended by
Albaspinaeus,3 Cardinal Bona,3 and Suicerus.* And there
is a passage in Tertullian, which makes this explication look
very natural ; for, speaking of the ancient discipline, and
distinguishing the degrees and malignity of heinous of
fences, he says,5 there were some impious furies of lust, so
far transgressing all the laws of nature, both with respect to
bodies and sex, that they did not only expel them from the
doors of the church, but from any covered place belonging
to it, as being monsters rather than common vices. Either
of these opinions, as having each their reasons and proba
bility to support them, may be admitted. But the opinion
of Balzamon here is little worth, who makes the Hye
mantes to be no more, than the second class of penitents,
called hearers. This does by no means shew any special
severity against such enormous sins, assigning them only a
common punishment with the rest. But if we suppose those,
who were guilty of them, either to be ranked among demo
niacs, or wholly to be kept out of the Church, we have
some proper idea of the Church's severity against them •
for which reason I have purposely mentioned it in this
1 Amphiloch.Hom. de Pcenit. ap. Combefis. p. 97. Chrys. Orat. 1. ad Stagy-
riura. 2 Albasp. Observ. in can. 17. Con. Ancyr. 3 Bona
Rer. Liturg. lib. i. cap. 17. n. 5. * Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. Voce
Xei/taJd/jEi/oi. * Tertul. de Pudicit. cap. 4. Reliquas autem
furias impias et in corpora et in sexus ultra jura naturie, non modo limine,
"eruni omni ecclesiae tecto submovemus, quia non sunt delicta, sed monstra.

600 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XVIII.
place, where we have been discoursing of the strictness and
severity of the ancient discipline, which is the last thing
considerable in the exercise of it, whilst men were under the
bonds and fetters of* excommunication. The next thing is
to see how they were loosed from these bonds, when their
penance was completed ; and this brings us to the business
of absolution, or the method of re-admitting penitents into
the communion of the Church again, which must be the
nubject of the next book.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 601

BOOK XIX.
OF ABSOLUTION, OR THE MANNER OF RE-ADMIT-
ING PENITENTS INTO THE COMMUNION OF THE
CHURCH AGAIN.

CHAP. I.
Of the Nature of A bsolution, and the several So7~t$ of it ;
more particularly of such as relate to the penitential
Discipline of the Church.
Sect. 1. — All Church-absolution only ministerial, not absolute.
Having hitherto seen the exercise of penitential disci
pline in all the several parts of it, as it related to sinners un
der the bonds of excommunication, we are now to consider
it under another view, as it denotes their absolution from
those bonds by the power ofthe keys, and the method of
restoring or re-admitting penitents, when their penance was
completed, to the communion of the Church again. Andhere
first of all we are to observe, that the Ancients challenged no
power in this matter but that, which was purely ministerial ;
leaving the absolute, sovereign, independent, and irrever
sible power only to God. Of which I need give no other
proof at present but only this, that they constantly made it
an argument for our Saviour's divinity, that He had tbe
sovereign power of forgiving sins: which argument could

602 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
have signified nothing, had men been equal sharers in this
power with Him. Thus Irenaeus argues against some ofthe
heretics in his own time: " our Saviour," says he,1 in for
giving sins both cured the man, and manifestly declared, who
He himself was. For if none can forgive sins but God
alone, and our Lord did forgive them, and cure men ; it is
manifest, that He was the Word of God, made the son of
man : and as He was man, He suffered with us and for us; as
He is God, He shews mercy to us, and forgives us our debts,
which we owe to God our Maker." The same argument is
urged by Tertullian in his books against Marcion f and by
Novatian against the Ebionites;3 and Athanasius against
the Arians ;* St. Basil also uses it,5 as one of his strongest
weapons against Eunomius ; and the like is done by St.
Hilary,6 and St. Chrysostom,7 and St. Jerom,8 and victor of
Antioch,9 and Cyril of Alexandria,10 who all argue for our
Saviour's divinity from this topic, that He had sovereign and
absolute power upon earth to forgive sins. And St.
Ambrose uses the same argument against the Macedonians11
to prove the divinity ofthe Holy Ghost. I produce none of
these testimonies at large here, both because they all speak
the same thing, and are already produced in an excellent
book of Bishop Usher's,12 which is common in every reader's
hands: where he also shews further the general agreement
of the Ancients in this assertion, that none can forgive sins
but God only, that is, with an absolute and sovereign power:

1 Iren. lib. v. cap. 17. Peccata igitur remittens, hominem quidem curavit,
semetipsum autem manifeste ostendit quis esset. Si enim nemo potest re-
mittere peccata nisi solus Deus ; remittebat autem haec Dominus, et curabaf
homines: manifestum est, quoniam ipse erat Verbum Dei, Filius hominis
faetus  Et quo modo homo compassus est nobis, tanquam Deus misereatur
nostri, &c. a Tertul. cont. Marcion. lib. iv. cap. 10.
8 Novat. de Trinit. cap. xiii. * Athan. Orat. iii. cont. Arianos.
Orat. iv. cont. Ar. It. Epist. de Synodis. 6 Basil, cont. Eunom.
lib. v. 6 Hilar. Canon, viii. in Mat. ' Chrys. Hom. xxix.
in Mat. 8 Hieron. Com. in Mat. ix. 9 Victor in
Marc. ii. 10 Cyril. Thesaur. lib. xii. cap. 4. Item de Recta Fide
ad Reginas. "Ambros. de Spir. Sancto. lib. iii. cap. 19. Vid.
Aug. Hom. xxiii. ex 1. c 7. ia Usher. Answer to the Jesuit's
Challenge, p. 79, &c.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 603
and therefore the power of absolution in the Church
is purely ministerial, and consists in the due exer
cise and application of those means, in the ordinary
use of which God is pleased to remit sins: using the
ministry of his servants, as stewards of his mysteries, in
the external dispensation of them ; but Himself conferring
the internal grace or gift of remission by the operation of
his spirit only upon the worthy receivers. These mysteries
or means of grace, in the external dispensation of which the
Church is concerned, and in the ordinary use of which remis
sion of sins is conveyed, are usually by the Ancients reck
oned up under these five heads : 1. the absolution or great
indulgence of baptism. 2. The absolution of the eucharist.
3. The absolution of the word and doctrine. 4. The abso
lution of imposition of hands and prayer. 5. The absolution
of reconcilement to the Church and her communion by a re
laxation of her censures. The two first may be called sacra
mental absolution ; the third declaratory absolution ; the
fourth precatory absolution ; the fifth judicial absolution: and
all of them authoritative, so far as they are done by the
ministerial authority and commission which Christ has
given to his Church, to reconcile men to God by the exer
cise of such acts and means, as conduce to that end
in a subordinate and ministerial way according to his
appointment. Sect. 2. — Of the grand Absolution of Baptism. That this was of no Use
in penitential Discipline to Persons once baptised.
But then all these sorts of absolution were not reckoned
of equal concern in penitential discipline. For though bap
tism was always esteemed the most universal absolution,
and grand indulgence in the ministry of the Church ; as
conveving a general pardon of sins to every true member of
Christ, when he first entered into his mystical body by the
laver of regeneration : yet this had no place in the exercise
of penitential discipline. For no penitent was ever recon -
ciled to the communion of the Church, after any lapse, or
censure, or penance done for it by a second baptism. And
yet the stewards of Christ's mysteries were always supposed

604 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
to have the ministerial power of conveying remission of sins
to men by the administration of baptism : and so far as they
were entrusted .with the administration of it, so far they had
power to bind or loose ; to admit the worthy into the
Church, or keep the unworthy out of it ; that is, in the
ministerial way, to remit men's sins by admitting them to
baptism, or retain their sins by keeping them from it,
according to the rules of Christ's institution and appoint
ment. The Ancients upon this account commonly give bap
tism the name of indulgence, or remission of sins, or the
sacrament of remission, as I have had occasion to shew out
of the Council of Carthage1 under Cyprian, and one ofthe
Roman Councils mentioned by Cotelerius,3 and St. Austin,8
in a former book,* where we treat more expressly of baptism.
It is also observable, that the Ancients commonly deduce
this ministerial power of remitting sins in baptism from the
same text, upon which the power of all other absolutions is
founded, viz. John. xx. 23. " Whosesoever sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain,
they are retained." They say, this commission is executed
by the ministers of Christ, as well in conferring baptism, as
in reconciling penitents, or any other way of ministerial
absolution. Cyprian argues upon this foot against the bap
tism of heretics and schismatics, that baptism given by them
is of no benefit to the receiver, because they are not of the
number of those, to whom Christ gave commission to remit
sins, as not being endued with the Holy Spirit. " Seeing,"
says he,5 " that remission of sins is granted to every man in
baptism, the Lord in his gospel declares and proves, that
1 Con. Carth. ap. Cypr. n. xix. p. 234. ! Con. Rom.
ap. Coteler in Constitut. Apost. lib. iii. cap. ix. s Aug. de
Bapt. lib. v. cap. 21. * Book ii. chap. i. sect. ii.
5 Cypr. Ep. lxxvi. al 69. ad Magnum, p. 185. Cum in baptismo unicui-
que peccata sua remittuntur, probatet declarat in suo evangelio Dominus,
per eos solos posse peccata dimitti, qui habeant Spiritum Sanctum. Post
resurrectionem enim discipulos suos mittens, loquitur ad eos et dicit: Sicut
misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos. Hoc cum dixisset, insufflavit et ait illis :
Accipite Spiritum Sanctum. Si cujus remiseritis peccata, remittentur illi :
si cujus tenueritis, tenebuntur. Quo in loco ostendit, eum solum posse bap-
lizare, et remissionem peccatorum dare, qui habeat Spiritum Sanctum.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 605
sins can only be remitted by them, who have the Holy Spirit.
For after his resurrection, when He sent forth his disciples,
He said unto them, ' As my Father sent Me, so send I you.
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, saying,
receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they
are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they
are retained.' In which place he shews, that they only can
baptise and grant remission of sins, who have the Holy
Ghost." So again in another epistle:1 " It is manifest both
where and by whom that remission of sins is granted^ which
is granted in baptism. For the Lord first gave that power
to Peter, that whatsoever he loosed on earth, should be
loosed in heaven. And after his resurrection, He said to his
disciples/ Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.'
Whence we understand, that no other have power to bap
tise, and grant remission of sins, but they who are made
rulers in the Church by the evangelical law and ordinance
of the Lord." Firmilian also follows Cyprian in the same
argument,9 proving from the same texts, that heretics have
no power to remit sins in baptism, because they are not in
the Church, nor of the number of those, to whom Christ
gave that commission. Neither was it only Cyprian and
Firmilian that thus asserted the power of remitting sins in
baptism to belong to the ministers of Christ, but generally
all other interpreters. Cyril of Alexandria expounding3
those words of our Saviour, " Whosesoever sins ye remit,
&c." says, " spiritual men remit or retain sins, as I conceive,
two ways. For either they call those to baptism, who are
worthy of it upon the account of a good life and approved

1 Id. Ep. lxxiii. ad Jubaian. p. 201. Manifestum est autem ubi et per
quos remissa peccatorum dari possit, quae in baptismo scilicet datur. Nam
Petro'primum Dominus  potestatem istam dedit, ut id solveretur in ccelis,
quod ille solvisset in terris. Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos
loquitur, dicens, Sicut misit me Pater, &c. Unde intelligimus, non nisi in
ecclesia prapositis, et in evangelica lege et dominica ordinatione fundatis,
licere baptizare, et remissam peccatorum dare. * Firmil. Ep. lxxv.
ap.Xypr. p. 225. 3 Cyril, lib. xii. in Joan. xx. xxiii. tom. 4.
p. 1101.

606 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
faith, or else they forbid and repel those from the divine gift,
who are unworthy of it. This is one way of remitting or re
taining sin. Another way is, when they punish and correct
the children of the Church offending, and pardon them again
upon their repentance : as Paul delivered the Corinthian
over to the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be
saved; and afterward received him, that he might not be
swallowed up of overmuch sorrow." St. Ambrose in like
manner ascribes the power of remitting sins to the adminis
tration of baptism, as well as penance: and upon this ground
he asks the Novatians,1 " why do ye baptise, if sins cannot
be remitted by the ministry of man % what is the difference,
whether priests assume this power as given to them in the
exercise of penance, or the administration of baptism"?"
Gaudentius says,2 " It is this key of the sacraments, that
opens the gate of the kingdom of heaven." Consequently
he must mean also, that so far as ministers are instrumental
in conferring the sacrament of baptism, so far they are in
strumental in procuring men that remission of sins which
attends it. And for this Teason Chrysostom magnifies the
sacerdotal office upon a double account, because the priests
have power to remit sins,3 both when they regenerate us,
and afterwards : that is, both by baptism and penance, when
they first admit men into the Church, and readmit or recon
cile them after any great transgression. But I mention this,
not so much to explain the penitential discipline of the
Church, in which baptismal absolution has no concern, as to
remark a few other necessary things. As first, that sacer
dotal absolution in general extends much further than is
commonly apprehended : for it includes the whole transac
tion of baptism, whereby remission of sins is ministerially
granted to every true member of Christ, when he is first

1 Ambros. de Pcenitent. lib. i. cap. vii. tom. 1. p. 157. Cur baptizatis, si
per hominem peccata dimitti non licet? Quid interest, utrum per poeniten
tiam, an per lavacrum hoc jus sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent?
s Gaudent. Tract, xvi. Die Ordinat. Suas Bibl. Patr. tom. ii. p. 59. Janua
quippe regni coelorum non nisi hoc sacramentorum spirituali clave reseratur*
s Chrys. de Sacerdot. lib. iii. cap. 6. Ov yap or' &v i7/j<ic avayivvSi<si /lovov,
aXXa Z, t& liETAravra ovvxapcTv EXH"tv itsaiav a/«tpT7jjUard.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 607
admitted into his Church. Whence it follows secondly
that sacerdotal absolution does not necessarily require any
particular or auricular confession of private sins ; forasmuch
as that the grand absolution of baptism was commonly given
without any particular confession. And therefore the
Romanists vainly found the necessity of auricular confession
upon those words of our Saviour, " Whosesoever sins ye re
mit, they are remitted unto them :" as if there could be no
absolution without particular confession ; when it is so
plain, that the great absolution of baptism, the power of
which is founded by the Ancients upon this very place, re
quired no such particular confession. Thirdly, we may
hence infer, that the power of any sacerdotal absolution is
only ministerial : because the administration of baptism,
which is the most universal absolution, so far as man is con
cerned in it, is no more than ministerial. All the office and
power of man in it is only to minister the external form, but
the internal power and grace of remission of sins is properly
God's: and so it is in all other sorts of absolution. Therefore
though baptismal absolution be no part of penitential disci
pline, yet by observing these things in it, we shall more
easily discern the true nature of those other absolutions,
which have some relation to the penitential discipline ofthe
Church . Sect. 3  Of the Absolution granted by the Eucharist.
The first of these, though we may call it the second in
the general consideration of absolutions, was the abso
lution that was given by the ministry. of the eucharist.
This had some relation to penitential discipline, but did not
solely belong to it. For it was given to all baptised per
sons, who never fell under penitential discipline, as well as
those, who lapsed, and were restored to communion again.
And in both respects it w_as called the to reXuov, the per
fection or consummation of a Christian ; there being no
higher mystery that an ordinary Christian could partake of.
To those who never fell into such great sins as required a
public penance, it was an absolution from lesser sins, which

608 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
were called venial, and sins of daily incursion: and to
penitents, who had lapsed, it was an absolution from those
greater sins, for which they were fallen under censure.
That it was esteemed such a general absolution in both
cases, we learn from the characters, which the Ancients
give of it both at large, and with a particular respect to its
loosing the bonds of excommunication. Cyprian says in
general,1 " that when we drink the blood of the Lord, and
the cup of salvation, we put off the remembrance of the
old man, and forget our former secular conversation ; and
our sorrowful and heavy heart, which before was pressed
with the anguish of out sins, is now absolved or set at
liberty by the joyfulness of the divine indulgence or par
don." And more particularly, that it was esteemed an
absolution, as it resolved the bonds of excommunication,
without any other formality or ceremony of receiving the
penitent into the communion of the Church, we learn from
that order made in the first Council of Orange,8 that such
penitents, as are ready to leave the body, shall have the
communion without the reconciliatory imposition of hands:
which, as we shall see by and by, was the usual and ordi
nary ceremony iu reconciling penitents publicly at the altar,
and what these were to have afterwards, if they happened
to survive. In the mean time this sort of communion, the
eucharist taken without imposition of hands, was suf
ficient for the consolation or reconciliation of a dying
person, according to the decrees of the Fathers, who con
gruously call this sort of communion their viaticum, or
provision for their journey. The fourth Council of Carthage
has two Canons implying the same thing. The first says,3
1 Cypr. Ep. lxiii. adCaecilium, p. 153. Epoto sanguine Domini, et poculo
salutari, exponitur raemoria veteris hominis, et fit oblivio conversationis
pristinae saecularis; etmoestum pectus actriste, quod prius peccatis augenti-
bus premebatur, divinaeindulgentis laetitia resolvitur. ! Con.
Arausican. can. iii. Qui recedunt de corpore, accepts poenitentia, placuit,
sine reconciliatoria manus impositione eos communicare, quod morientis
suflicit consolationi, al. reconciliation), secundum definitiones Patrum, qui
hujusmodi communionem congruenter viaticum nominaverunt.
3 Con. Carth. iv. can. 76. Si continuo creditur moriturus, reconcilietur per
mantis impositionem, etinfundatur ori ejus eu«haristia.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 609
if a penitent is struck dumb in his sickness, and is thought
to be at the point of death, he shall be reconciled both by
imposition of hands, and by the eucharist put into his
mouth. And the other grants the eucharist as an absolu
tion by itself to penitents in sickness, if i hey chance to die ;
only providing,1 that, in case they recover, they shall not
hold themselves absolved without imposition of hands also:
because in case they survived, they were obliged to perform
the residue of their penance, which they should have done
before, and then be reconciled by imposition of hands pub
licly at the altar; but if they died, the eucharist alone was
a sufficient absolution for them. And this is confirmed by
that memorable story, related by Eusebius,3 out of an
epistle of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, concern
ing one Serapion, an aged man, who had led a vir
tuous life, but happened at last to lapse into idolatry in time
of persecution. He had often sued for pardon, but no one
would hearken to him, because he had sacrificed to idols.
Afterward falling sick, he sent for one of the presbyters to
come and absolve him in the night. Thd presbyter himself
was sick, and could not go to him: but because the bishop
had given in charge, that absolution should be granted to
all, that were at the point of death, if they desired it, and
especially if they had earnestly desired it before, that they
might have hope and consolation in their last minutes,
when they were about to leave the world, the presbyter
sent him a little portion ofthe eucharist by the boy that
came for him, bidding him to dip it in liquor, and put it into
his mouth. Which he did, and presently the man expired.
Upon which Dionysius himself makes this remark: that it
was apparent, that God preserved him, and continued him
so long in life, till he might be absolved, and have his sins
blotted out, and be owned by Christ for the many good
deeds he had done. I need make no other reflection upon
the story, since Dionysius tells us so plainly, that to minis
ter the eucharist to men was to grant them absolution, and
1 Con. Carth. iv. can 78. Poenitentes, qui in infirmitate viaticum eucha
ristie acceperint, non secredunt absolutos sine manQs impositione, si super
vixerint. * Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 44.
vol. vi. 2 R

610 THE AN1TQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
remission of sins, and peace and favour with Christ, when
it was given in his name to worthy receivers. And thus it
was, that the ministers of Christ, as his ambassadors, were
always supposed to have the ministerial power to remit
sins, and reconcile penitents to Christ, by this sacramental
absolution.

Sect. 4 — Of Absolution declaratory and effective by the Administration of
the Word and Doctrine.
The third sort of absolution is that of the word and doc
trine, which is partly declarative, and partly operative and
effective; and is of use both in penitential discipline, and
out of it. For the ministers of Christ, as his ambassadors,
have commission and authority to make a general and pub
lie declaration of the terms of reconciliation and salvation
to men. And this is also ministerially operative in working
faith and repentance in men's souls, which are the terms of
salvation, whereby they obtain remission of sins. For
faith comes by hearing-, and hearing by the word of God.
They have also power to declare to men in particular, that
they are in a salvable state, when upon the best human
judgment that they can make, they apprehend and discern
in them the necessary conditions of salvation. This is that
key of knowledge, whereby they open to men the gate of
heaven, and the way to eternal life, procuring for them the
remission of sins, and all the benefits of the Gospel-
covenant. It is this that introduces men at first into God's
favour, and ascertains them of it; and when they are fallen
from that state by wilful sin, it is a means, as a part of the
Church's penitential discipline, to reduce them back again
to their forfeited estate and primitive condition. Upon
which account hearing of the word of God, as we have
seen before, was always one station of penitents in the
Church, and was an initiatory sort of reconcilement of them
to God, introductory to the great and last reconcilement at
the altar. And in this sense, the Ancients say, Christ gave
his disciples power to remit sins, " every man," says St.

( CHAP. I. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 611
Jerom,1 " is bound in the cords of his own sins: which
cords and bonds the apostles have power to loose, imitating
their master, who said unto them : ' Whatsoever ye loose
upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' Now the Apostles
loose them by the word of God, and testimonies of Scrip
ture, and exhortation unto virtue." In like manner St.
Ambrose says,8 " Sins are remitted by the word of God,
whereof the Levite is the interpreter, and a sort of execu
tor : and in this respect the Levite is the minister of re
mission." " It is this key of the word," says Maximus
Taurinensis,3 " which opens the conscience to confession of
sins, and includes therein the grace of the mystery of sal
vation unto eternity. Thus ministers are said to be instru
mental in reconciling men to God, and procuring them
remission of sins, because to them is committed the word of
reconciliation. Sect. 6. — Of the precatory Absolution given by Imposition of Hands and
Prayer.
The fourth sort of absolution was that of intercession and
prayer, which was used as a concomitant of most other ab
solutions. For baptism and the eucharist were either ad
ministered in a precatory form, or at least prayers and inter
cessions for pardon of sins always attended them : and so
they did also the great and solemn reconciliation of peni
tents at the altar. And to prayer they commonly joined im
position of hands, a rite and ceremony of benediction that
was used in all offices of religion. By this persons were at
first admitted to the state of catechumens, and by this
1 Hieron. in Esai. xiv. 17. Funibus peccatorum suorum unusquisque
constringitur : quos funes alque vincula solvere possunt et Apostoli, imi-
tantes magi strum suum, qui eis dixerat: Quaecunque solveritis super terram,
erunt soluta etin coelo. Solvunt autem eos Apostoli sermone Dei, et testi-
moniis scripturarum, et exhortatione virtutum. 3 Ambros. de Abel
et Cain, lib. ii. cap. 4. Remiltuntur peccata per Dei verbum, cujus Levites
interpres, et quidam executor.  Levites igitur minister remissionis est.
' Maxim. Taurin. Horn. v. de Natal i Petri et Pauli, p. 231. Clavis quae
et conscientiam ad confessionem peccati aperit, et gratiam ad aeternitatem
mysterii salutaris includit.
2 R 2

fJl2 THE ANTIQU1TIK9 OF THE [BOOK XIX.
trained up in their preparation for baptism. By this persons
were confirmed in the close of baptism. By this ordinations
were given to the clergy, and benedictions to all the people.
And Albaspinmus has observed,1 that in the course of pub
lic penance this ceremony was at least four times used to
wards all that went through it, before they were completely
reconciled and admitted to full communion. 1. They were
admitted to penance by imposition of hands. 2. They had
frequent imposition of hands whilst they were penitents in
the order of kneelers or prostrators. 3. They were admitted
to the lower degree of communion in prayers only without
the oblation by the same rite. 4. And lastly, imposition of
hands was one ofthe solemn rites of admitting- them to the
more perfect degree of reconciliation at the altar. Now
though prayer and imposition of hands was not esteemed an
absolution in all these eases, yet in many of them it certainly
was. For Chrysostom speaking of the several powers of
the sacerdotal office, and the methods of expiating sin, says,*
" the priests do it not only by their doctrine and admonition,
but also by the assistance of their prayers : they have
power of remitting sins not only when they regenerate us in
baptism, but afterwards. For St. James says, ' Is any sick
among you 1 let him call for the elders of the Church, and
let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name
of the Lord : and the prayer of faith shall save the sick,
and the Lord shall raise him up ; and if he have committed
sins, they shall be forgiven him.' " Pope Leo after the
same manner m akes sacerdotal absolution to consist in
prayer. -' The assistances of divine goodness," says he,3
" are so ordained, lhat the divine indulgence is not to be ob
tained but by the supplications of the priests. And it is very
useful and necessary that the guilt of sin should be loosed

1 Albasp. Observ. lib. ii. cap. 31. * Chrys. de Sacerdot. lib. iii.
cpp. vi. tom. 4. p. 35. a Leo. Ep. lxxxix. al. 91. ad Theodor.
Sic divinas bonitatis praesidiis ordinatis, ut indulgentia Dei, nisi, suppli-
cationibus saccrdolum, nequeat obtiueri.  Item, Multuin utile ac ne-
cessarium est, ut peccatorum reatus ante ultimum diem sacerdotali supplica-
tlonesolvatur.

HAP- '¦] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 613
by the supplications of the priests before the last day."
Here remission of sins is plainly ascribed to the efficacy of
intercession and prayer. St. Austin says, the prayers of
holy men in the Church procure remission of sins both in
baptism and penance. For he argues thus : " if the prayers
of holy men in the Church procure remission of sins for
those, who are baptised not by the dove, but by the hawk,
that is, not by good, but wicked men, if they come to that
sacrament in the peace of Catholic unity : why should not
the prayers of the same men loose the sins of those, who
return from heresy or schism to Catholic unity V he adds8
a little after, that the prayers of the saints, that is, the mourn
ings of the dove, grant remission of sins to those that are
baptised in the peace ofthe Church, whatever the person be
that administers baptism, whether he be a covetous man or
an extortioner, because he only acts in the person of the
Church, by whose prayers remission of sins- is obtained.
Therefore he exhorts the Donatists in another place,3 to re
turn to the peace of the Church, where by the joint prayers
of two people united they might obtain remission of sins.
" For the Lord had said, ' If two of you shall agree on earth
as touching any thing that they shall as.k, it shali be done
for them of my Father which is in heaven.' If for two men,
how much more for two people? therefore let us jointly fall
down to supplicate the Lord : do you partake with us in
unity, and let us partake with you in sorrow, that charity
may cover the multitude of sins." Here again we see,
1 Aug. de Rapt. lib. iii. cap. 17. An forte* per orationes sanctorum spiri-
talium, &c. tnrum etiam peccata solvantur, qui non per columbam, sed per
accipitiem baptizantur, si ad illud saciamentum cum pace catholicee unitatis
acceduut ? Quod si ita est, cur non ergo per eorum orationes, cum quisque
ab h^resi aut schismate ad pacem catholicam venit, ejus peccaia solvuntur?
8 Ibid. cap. xviii. Remissam tamen peccatorum non dabant (raptores et
atari), quae per orationes sanctorum, id est, per columbae geinitus datur,
quicunque baptizet, si ad ejus pncem pertinent illi quibus datur.
* Ibid. lib. ii. cap. 13, Multum valet ad propitiandum Deum fraterna
Concordia. " Si duobus ex vobis," ait Dominus, " conveneiit in
terrS, quicquid petieretis, fiet vobis." Si duobus hominibus, quanto magis
duobun populis? Simul nos Domino prostemamus, participamini nobiscum
unitatem, participemur vobiscum dolorem, et charitas eoopeiriat multitudinem
peccatorum.

614 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
remission of sins is ascribed to prayer. And so Cyprian un
derstood it, when he thus addressed himself to those that
had lapsed into idolatry :» " we pray you to repent, that we
may be able to pray to God for you : we first turn our
prayers to you, that we may turn the same to God, and be
seech Him to have compassion on you."2 Eusebius after
Clemens Alexandrinus, notes this to have been the method
whereby St. John obtained pardon of Christ for the young
man, who after a pious education in the Church was become
a most notorious robber upon the mountains: he interceded
with Christ by frequent prayers and fastings, and thereby
restored him, a great example of repentance to the Church.
And thus Tertullian,3 whilst he was a Catholic, represents
Christ as joining his intercession with the tears of the
Church, and thereby obtaining pardon for the penitent sin
ner. The first Council of Orange appoints this to be the
way of reconciling heretics,* who desire to become Catholics
at the point of death: if the bishop was not at hand, the
presbvters were to consign them with chrism, and the bene
diction: which benediction was the same as imposition of
hands and prayer. For as imposition of hands, by a figure,
always implies prayer with imposition of hands, as an out
ward sign or ceremony accompanying prayer : so both these
together are what the Ancients always mean by a benedic
tion. So that when the Council bids those who a rebaptised
in heresy, to be reconciled to the Church, or absolved by a
benediction, it is plain that prayer is understood as the pro
per means of their absolution. And it is the same thing as
is ordered in other Canons,5 that heretics so baptised should

1 Cypr. deLapsis, p. 136. Rogamus vos, ut pro vobis Deum rogare possi-
mus. Preces ipsas ad vos prius vertimus, quibus Deum pro vobis, ut
misereatur, oramus. 2 Euseb. lib. iii. cap. 23.
AavfuXtWi piv Evxatg E^aiTH/iEvog, &c. Ex Clem. Alex. Tract. Quis dives sal-
vetur? 8 Tertul. de Poenit. cap. x. iEque illi cum super te
lacrymas agunt, Christus patitnr, Christus Patrem deprecatur. Facile im-
petratur semper, quod Filius postulat. * Con. Arausican.
can. ii. HaBreticosin mortis discrimine positos, si Catholici esse desiderent,
si desit episcopus, a presbyteris cum chrismate et benedictione consignari
placet. * Con. Arelat. ii. can. 17. Bonosiacos, quos baptizari

CHAP- J] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 615
be received into communion by chrism and imposition of
hands, that is, unction to consign or confirm them with the
spirit, which was wanting in their heretical baptism ; and
prayer with imposition of hands, to give them the peace and
communion of the Church. Of which way of reconciling
and absolving penitent heretics, who were baptised out of
the Church, we shall have occasion to discourse a little
more distinctly hereafter. Here I only add further the tes
timony of St. Ambrose,1 who says, the priests execute that
commission, which is given by Christ, John xx. 23. for remit
ting of sins, as intercessors by their prayers. They make
request, but God bestows the gift : "the service is human,
but the bounty of forgiveness is from the power above. So
that if this be not the only way, whereby the ministers of
Christ are empowered to remit sins as some of the schoolmen
themselves have determined ; yet it was certainly one way,
and that of general use in the primitive Church, as is clearly
evident from the present allegations, and will be made more
apparent in the sequel of this discourse.
Sect. 6. — Of the judicial Absolution of Penitents by restoring them finally
to the Peace and full Communion of the Church.
For prayer hada considerable share in the great and final
absolution of penitents, when after they had performed their
canonical penance, they were solemnly reconciled and re
ceived to the peace and perfect communion of the Church
at the altar. This was that famous way of remitting sins,
and absolving sinners, of which we read so much in the
monuments of the fathers and councils, where they speak of
penitential discipline and absolution of sinners. This is,
what is generally meant by those ancient phrases, granting

inTrinitate manifestum esto  cum chrismate et manus impositione recipi
Sufficit. Leo. Ep. xcii. ad Rusticum, cap. xvi. PermanQs impositionem, in-
vocata virtute SpiritQs Sancti, quam ab haereticis accipere non potuerunt,
Catholicis copulandi sunt. Vid. Siriciura, Ep. i. ad Himerium, cap. i. In
nocent. Ep. i. ad Victricium, cap. viii. Ep. xviii. ad Alexandr. cap. iii.
Ep. xxii. cap. 4. ' Ambros. de Spir. Sancto.lib. iii. cap. xix.
Isti rogant, divinitas douat, &c.

616 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
them peace, restoring them to communion, reconciling them
to the Church, loosing their bonds, granting them pardon
and indulgence, and remitting their sins, which ore but so
many different ways of expressing this one thing,
viz. the solemn manner of absolving public penitents
and admitting them to full communion, when their
canonical penance was regularly performed. And this
comprehended all the other ways of absolution, ex
cept that of baptismal absolution. For as I noted before,
no penitent that had once been regularly baptised, was ever
admitted to communion by a second baptism : but they had
the absolution of prayer and imposition of hands, and the
absolution of the eucharist, and the declaratory absolution
of the word and doctrine: for solemn prayer was made to
God for them, to procure their absolution from Him;. and
the solemn imposition of hands was given them, to signify
their reconciliation ; and the eucharist was immediately
given them, to restore them to the communion of the altar ;
and by the whole a declaration was made, that they were
now again in the society and peace of the church, and in
favour with God, as far as human understanding could
make any judgment of them. And upon this account some
ancient writers acknowledg-e no other sorts of absolution but
only two ; the baptismal absolution, which is antecedent to
all penitential discipline ; and this of reconciling public
penitents to the communion of the altar; because this
latter comprehends all the other ways of absolution in the
several acts and ceremonies that were used in the conferring
of it. Thus we have heard before Cyril of Alexandria ex
pounding those words of the commission,1 John xx. 23.
" Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them."
" Spiritual men remit or retain sins two ways : for either
they call those to baptism, who are worthy of it upon the
account of a good life and approved faith ; or else they for
bid and repel those from the divine gift, who are unworthy
of it. This is one way of remitting or retaining- sins : the

1 Cyril, lib. xii. in Joan. xx. 23. See before, sect. S.

CHAP. I.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 617
other way is, when they correct and punish the children of
the Church offending-, and pardon them again upon their re
pentance. Now because the ministers of Christ are in a
great measure the proper judges of men's qualifications both
for baptism and the eucharist, therefore a great power and
authority was allowed them in both these cases to examine
into men's behaviour and faith, and to judge who were fit
and who were not fit for the reception of them ; and accord
ingly to minister, or not minister to them those mysteries,
which were the means of conveying remission of sins to the
worthy receiver; and so they were invested with a sort of
absolute judicial authority in the external administration of
these things with respect to the outward communion of the
Church, though not with an absolute authority over the con
science in respect to God, who alone can properly remit sin
and absolve the sinner. So they acted in a double capacity
in these matters; as judges in respect of men's visible qua
lifications for the sacraments, and the proper time and season
of admitting them to the participation of them ; having
power to shorten or prolong the time, as they judged of the
negligence or proficiency of the petitioning parties : but
they acted only as intercessors to God for them, as to any
thing pertaining directly and properly to the purification of
the conscience from sin, which is not in man's power, but
only in a ministerial way, to do those things, which as means
of grace may contribute towards obtaining a proper absolu
tion and remission of sins from God, in whose power only is
the absolute power of forgiving sins." This is the true
state of the matter, as to what concerns the several sorts of
absolution in use in the ancient Church, and particularly
that absolution, which was given to public penitents upon
their restoration to communion ; the manner and ceremonies
of which, with other incident circumstances, 1 shall now go
on a little further to explain.

618

THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.

CHAP. II.
Of the Customs, Rites, and Circumstances anciently ob
served in the public Absolution of Sinners.
Sect. 1.— No Sinners anciently absolved, till they had performed their
regular Penance, except in Case of imminent Death.
When sinners had performed their regular penance, and
carefully gone through the several stages of discipline ap
pointed for the distinct orders of penitents in the Church,
they were then admitted to complete and perfect commu
nion by the great and last reconciliatory absolution. But
this was anciently granted to none before they had orderly
completed the full term of their penance, unless it was in
case of imminent death, when their desperate case made it
reasonable to treat them a little more favourably, and grant
them an indulgence, which no consideration but that ex
traordinary exigence could procure them. Indulgences
were not then bought and sold, as they were most shame
fully in after ages: much less was bare confession sufficient
to gain a man absolution, before he had done a formal and
serious penance to the satisfaction of the Church. The
Audian heretics indeed were very faulty in this matter, as
Theodoret informs us.1 For they not only assumed to them
selves a despotic authority, like the Donatists, to pardon
sins by their own power; but also hastily granted remission
upon a bare confession, without staying for any fruits of
repentance, or prescribing any time for the public manifes
tation of them, as the laws of the Church always required.
And there were some presbyters of the Church in Cyprian's
time, who for favour or filthy lucre were much inclined to

1 Theod. de Fabulis Hteret. lib. iv. cap. 13.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 619
admit lapsers, without any just penance done, in a very hasty
and preposterous manner to communion. And the martyrs,
by their artifices and frauds, were many times induced to in
tercede to the bishops for such sinners, and almost demand
of them an immediate re-admission of the offenders. But
Cyprian very sharply remonstrates against this usurpation
and abuse in several letters written both to the clergy,1 and
the martyrs, and the people themselves, wherein he sets
forth both the irregularity and the danger of the practice ;
telling the people particularly, that this indulgent facility in
the clergy to grant them such a preposterous peace, did not
really give them peace, but destroy it ; nor grant them true
communion, but only hinder their salvation. And St.
Ambrose makes a like reflection on the vanity of those,' who
seek for such a sudden restoration : some men, says he,3 de
sire to be admitted to penance only for this reason, that they
may presently receive the communion again. These men
do not so much desire to be absolved themselves, as to bind
the priest: for they retain their evil conscience; and there
fore the priest sins greatly in admitting men, who give no
signs of repentance, to communion against the laws of the
Church. There was one case indeed in which men misfit
be reconciled privately, when they had not perfectly gone
through their whole course of penance ; which was, when
they lay sick and despaired of upon a death-bed : but that
was an extraordinary case, and the only exception that the
general rule admitted of; and was only a private and not a
solemn and public reconciliation : and even in thut case, as
I have shewn before,3 the Canons provided, that if the sick
man recovered, he should perform the residue of his pe
nance in the regular course appointed for public penitents,
before he was solemnly reconciled at the altar. So that the
custom of absolving sinners in health, before any penance is

1 Cypr. Ep. x. al. xvi. ad Cler. p. 37. Ep. xi. al. xv. ad Martyr.
p. 34. It. de Lapsis, p. 128. 2 Ambros. de Pcenit. lib. ii. cap. 9.
Nonnulli ideo poscunt poenitentiam, ut statim sibi reddi coinmunionem
velint. Hi non tkm se solvere cupiunt, quam sacerdotein ligare, &c.
8 Book xviii. chap. iv. sect. 3.

620 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
done, must be determined to be not only a novelty, but a
great abuse and corruption of the ancient discipline, wholly
owing to the degeneracy of latter ages.

Sect. 2. — Penitents publicly reconciled in Sackcloth at the Altar.
As to the manner of the ancient reconciliation, it was
usually thus performed. When a sinner had gone through the
course of his penance, he was brought to the altar in the same
habit (hat he had performed his penance in, that is, in sack
cloth, and there with solemn prayers and tears and imposition
of hands received to full communion. The circumstance of
sackcloth is mentioned by the first Council of Toledo ;* and
the place of reconciliation said to be the altar, not only by
that Council, but by Optatus,2 who speaking to the Dona
tists, and of their way of reconciling penitents, which was
the same as was used in the Catholic Church, tells them,
that at the same time that they laid hands on sinners, and re
mitted their sins, they turned to the altar, and said the Lord's
Prayer. And so St. Jerom says,3 the bishop injoins the
people common prayer, when he reconciles any one, who
had been delivered over unto Satan, to or at the altar.

Sect. 3. — Sometimes more publicly before the Apsis or Reading Desk.
Yet in some cases, when the crime was very public, and
more than ordinaril}' notorious and scandalous to all the
people, the criminal for example's sake received his abso
lution in a more public place, before the Apsis, or reading-
desk, in the open body ofthe Church, and in the view of all
the people. This we learn from a Canon of the third Coun-

1 Con. Tolet. i. can. 2. Publicam poenitentiam gerens subcilicio, divino
reconciliatusaltario. 2 Optat. lib. ii. p. 57. Inter vicina momenta,
dumm«nusiinponitis, et delicta donatis, mox ad altare conversi, Dominicam
orationem praetermittere non potestis. 3 Hieron. Dial. cont.
Lucif. cap. ii. Sacerdos  indicts, in populum oratione, altario recon-
ciliat.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 621
cil of Carthage inserted into the African Code,1 which says,
that if any penitent's crime be public, or vulgarly known'to
all, so as lo have given scandal to the whole Church, he
shall receive imposition of hands, that is, his absolution, be
fore the Apsis. Learned men indeed are not exactly agreed
about the sense of this Canon : Du Fresne,9 after Balsamon
and Zonaras, takes the Apsis for the Church porch ; and
Zonaras says, the imposition of hands means the first impo
sition that admitted them to penance : Albaspinaeus thinks3
ihe Apsis means the same as the Ambo or reading-desk;
where the penitents ofthe third class, called thesubstrators,
kneeled down daily to receive imposition of hands; and to
this he thinks the imposition of hands, mentioned in the fore
said Canon, chiefly relates, but with this difference, that
whereas ordinary penitents received their imposition of hands
a little more privately behind the desk, these more notorious
and scandalous criminals, which the Canon speaks of, re
ceived it publicly before the desk, in the face and view of
all the people. He also is of opinion, that their final abso
lution was given them in the same place, and that 1 take to
be the true meaning of the imposition of hands iu the Canon
now before us.

Sect. 4. — Absolution at the Altar always given in a supplicatory Form by
Imposition of Hands and Prayer.
However it is certain, whatever the sense of that Canon
be, that the great and final absolution of publie penitents
was always performed in a supplicatory form by imposition
of hands and prayer. This is evident from the forementioned
testimonies of Optatus and St. Jerom. Cyprian speaks often
of it, as used both in public and private reconciliation. In
one place he says,1 all penitents continued a just time in

1 Con. Carth. iii. can. 82. Cujuscunque pcenitentis publicum etvulga-
tissimuin crimen est, quod universam ecclesiam commoverit, ante apsidem
manus eiimponatur. Vid. Cod. Afric. can. xliii. ' Du Fresne,
Commentar. in Paulum Silentiarium, p. 536. * Albaspin. Not.
in Con. Carth. iii. can. 33. * Cypr. Ep. xii. al. xvii. ad Plebem,

622 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
he exercise of penance; they made their confessions, and
their life was examined, and then they were received to
communion by imposition of hands given them by the bishop
and clergy ; and there was no other way of being recon
ciled but this. He repeats this again in other places,1 and
both there and elsewhere complains of some of his presby
ters, who transgressed this rule,2 and admitted penitents to
the eucharist before this ceremony of admission was regu
larly performed toward them. He also shews that private
reconciliation of penitents upon a death-bed was performed
after the same manner : they made their confession before a
presbyter or deacon,3 and if they were in danger of death, im
position of hands was given them, that they might depart
hence in peace unto the Lord. Which shews, that he
speaks not only of the intermediate imposition of hands,
which was given daily to the third order, of penitents called
prostrators, whilst they were doing their penance, but also
of the last imposition of hands, which was given to peni
tents at their final reconciliation to the communion of the
Church. This some Canons therefore call the reconeiliatory
imposition of hands, to distinguish it from all other kinds,
whether in penance or out of penance. The custom conti
nued in Afric to give dying penitents reconciliation in this
manner by imposition of hands in the time of St. Austin and
the fourth Council of Carthage. For so that Council ap-r
pointed:* " if a man in sickness desires penance, let him
receive it; and if the signs of death be upon him, let him be
reconciled by imposition of hands, and let the eucharist be

p. 39. Pcenitentia agiturjusto tempore, et exomologesis fit, inspects vit&
ejus qui agit pcenitentiam ; nee ad communicationem venire quis possit, nisi
priOs illi ab episcopo et clero manus fuerit imposita.
1 Cypr.Ep. x. al. xvi. p. 37. Per manus impositionem episcopi et cler i
jus commuuicationis accipiant, &c. 2 Via. Cypr. ds Lapsis, p. 136.
Ep. xii. al. xvii. p. 39. Ep. xi. al. xv. ad Martyras, p. 34.
a Cypr. Ep. xiii. al. xviii. p. 40. Si presbyter repertus non fuerit et ur-
gere exitus coeperit, apud diaconum exoinologesin facere delicti sui possint ;
ut manu eis in poenitentia imposita, veniant ad Dominum cum pace. It.
Ep. xiv. al. xix. p. 41. Ep. xv. al.xx. p. 43. * Con. Carth. iv.
can. 76. Aecipiat poenitentiam ; et si continuo creditur moriturus, recon-
cilletur per manfls impositionem, et oriejus infundatur eucharistia.

CHAP II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 623
put into his mouth." But in other places the eucharist alone
was given to dying penitents, as their viaticum, when they
had not performed their whole penance in health ; and if
they happened to recover, then they were to finish their pe
nance in their ordinary course; and when they had given evi
dence of a true repentance by the proper fruits of it. they
were then to be received publicly to communion by the re-
conciliatory imposition of hands, as in this case the first
Council of Orange appointed.1 Now though there be no
mention made of prayer in this way of reconciliation, yet it
always is to be understood, according to that of St. Austin,2
who says, that imposition of hands is nothing else but prayer,
that is, a ceremony attending all prayers of benediction :
which therefore both he,s and other writers sometimes more
expressly call " orationem manus impositionis, the prayer
of imposition of hands :" some forms of which both for pe
nance and other benedictions may be seen in the author of
the Apostolical constitutions ;* and particularly for reconci
ling of penitents there is an order,5 that the bishpp shall re
ceive them to communion with imposition of hands, and the
prayer of the whole Church for them; the form of this
prayer is in the end of St. James's liturgy, under the title of
Ei)x»i rov tAao-juS, the prayer of propitiation, which is directed
to Christ in these words,6 " O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the
living God, Thou Shepherd and Lamb, that takest away the
sins of the world, that forgavest the debt to the two debtors,
and grantedst remission of sins to the sinful woman, and
gavest to the sick ofthe palsy both a cure and pardon of

1 Con. Arausican. i. can. 3. Quod si supervixerint, stent in ordine pceni-
tentium, ut ostensis necessariis poenitentiae fructibus, legitimam communi
onem cum reconciliatoria manQs impositione recipiant. See in book xviii.
chap. iv. sect. 3. this Canon more fully recited. 3 Aug. de Bap.
lib. iii. cap. 16. Quid enim aliud est impositio manQs, nisi oratio super
hominem. a Aug de Peccator. Mentis, lib. ii.cap. 26. Con.
Milevitan. ii. can. 12. Clem. Alex. Paedagog. lib. iii. cap. 11. Euseb.
Hist. lib. i. cap. 13. lib. vii. cap. 2. Constit. Apost. lib. viii. cap. 9.
X«pol9£tna i, EixJj. * Constit. lib. viii. cap. 9, et39.
* Ibid. lib. ii. cap. 18. 6 Liturg. Jacobi in Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat.
tom. ii. p. xxiii.

624 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
sins ; remit, blot out, and pardon our sins, both voluntary
and involunary, whatever we have done wittingly or unwit
tingly by transgression and disobedience, which thy Spirit
knoweth better than we ourselves. And whereinsoever thy
servants have erred from thy commandments in word or
deed, as men carrying flesh about them, and living in the
world, or seduced by the instigations of Satan; or whatever
curse or peculiar anathema they are fallen under, I pray,
and beseech thy ineffable goodness to absolve them with thy
word, and remit their curse and anathema according to thy
mercy. O Lord and Master, hear my prayer for thy servants;
Thou that forgettest injuries, overlook all their failings, par
don their ofi'ences both voluntary and involuntary, and de
liver them from eternal punishment. For Thou art He that
hast commanded us, saying, ' Whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall
loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven :' because Thou art
our God, the God that canst have mercy, and save and forgive
sins; and to Thee with the Eternal Father, and the quickening
Spirit, belongs glory now and for ever, world without end.
Amen." The like forms of absolution by prayerare still in use in the
Greek Church, as may be seen in Goar's Euchologium,1 and
Dr. Smith's Account of the present State of that Church.5
Bishop Usher shews further out of Alcuin,3and the old Ordo
Romanus, and some ofthe Roman Ceremonials, and Ponti
ficals, that the same form was used for many ages in the
Latin Church also. And this is confirmed by the old
Latin Missal published by lllyricus and Cardinal Bona,*
where the absolution, under the title of Indulgentia, runs in
this form : " He that forgave the sinful woman all her sins

1 Goar. Eucholog. p. 666. s Smith's Account, p. 181.
* Usher. Answ. to the Challenge, p. 88. * Bona.Rer. Liturg.
in Appendice, p. 763. Qui mulieri peccatrici omnia peccata dimisit lacry-
raanli, et laironi ad unam confessionem claustra aperuit paradisi, ipse vos
redemptionis suae participesab omni vinculo peccatorum absolvat, et mem
bra aliquatenus debililata medicina inisericoidiae sanata, corpori sancae ec
clesiae redeunte gratia restituat, atque in perpetuum solidata custodiat. Qui
vivit et regnat.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 625
for which she shed tears, and opened the gate of paradise to
the thief upon a single confession, make you partakers of his
redemption, and absolve you from all, the bond of your sins,
and heal those infirm members by the medicine of his mercy,
and restore them to the body of his holy Church by his
grace, and keep them whole and sound for ever."'
Other forms of absolution by prayer might be added, but
these are abundantly sufficient, to shew, that anciently the
great and formal absolution of public penitents at the altar
was usually performed by imposition of hands and prayer:
the one as the means procuring, and the other as the rite de
claring their reconciliation to God and his Church.
Sect. 5. — Absolution in the indicative Form, Ego te abstflvo, not used till
the twelfth Century.
If it be enquired, when the use of the indicative form of
absolution first began to be used in the Church, that is, the
form, I absolve thee, instead of the deprecatory form, Christ
absolve thee ; Morinus has fully proved,1 that there was no
use of it till the twelfth or thirteenth century, not long before
the time of Thomas Aquinas, who was one of the first that
wrote in defence of it. And our learned Bishop Usher has2
clearly proved the novelty of it from Aquinas himself. For
he says,3 there was a learned man in his time, who found
fault with the indicative form of absolution then used by
the priest: "I absolve thee from all thy sins;" and would
have it to be delivered only by way of deprecation ;
alleging, that this was not only the opinion of Gulielmus
Altissiodorensis, Gulielmus Parisiensis, and Hugo Cardina-
lis ; but also that thirty years were scarce passed, since all
did use this form only : " absolutionem et remissionem tri-
buat tibi Omnipotens Deus, Almighty God give thee remis
sion and forgiveness." This points out the time of the
change so precisely, that learned men,* who allow the form
1 Morin. dePoenitent. lib. viii. cap. 8, 9, &c. B Usher.
Answ. to the Jesuit's Challenge, p. 89. 8 Aquin. Opusc. xxii.
de Forma Absolution, cap. v. * See Bp. Fell's Not. in Cypr.
de Lapsis, p. 136. Discourse of the penitential Discipline of the Prim.
Church, chap. iii. sect, 4. Lond. 1614.
VOL. VI. 2 9

626 THE ANTIQUITIES OP THE [BOOK XIX.
in some sense proper to be used, make no scruple to declare
their opinion of the novelty of it upon the strength of the
foregoing considerations.
Sect. 6. — In what Sense that Form may be allowed.
If it be asked further, in what sense the indicative form
of absolution may be allowed ? it is answered, that it may
be allowed several ways.
1. As an act of jurisdiction, by those, who are entrusted
with the power of receiving public penitents into communion,
and loosing the bonds of excommunication, wherewith they
were judicially and formally tied by the censure ofthe Church
before. In this sense it is no impropriety for him, who has the
key of j urisdiction, and power of relaxing, as well as inflicting
Church-censures, to use the indicative form, I absolve thee.
For this is only an external act of ecclesiastical power, that
respects only the outward and visible communion, but does
nor directly or immediately affect the conscience. Therefore
some learned persons not only allow the use of it in this
sense, but think it was actually so used by some in the pri
mitive Church.1 As by Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome, whom
Tertullian, after he was become a Montanist, upbraids,2 as
saying, I forgive the sins of fornication and adultery to those
that do penance for them ; meaning, that he admitted them
again to the peace and communion of the Church, which
the Montanists and the Novatians after them would by no
means allow of.
2. This indicative form, I absolve thee, may be interpreted
to mean no more than the declaration of God's will to a pe
nitent sinner, that upon the best judgment the priest can
make of his repentance, he esteems him absolved before

' Fell in Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 136. Discourse of the penitential Disci
pline of the Prim. Church, chap. iii. sect. 4. Lond. 1614.
8 Tertul. de Pudicit. cap. i. Pontifex scilicet Maximus, episcopus episco
porum, dicit, Ego et mcechiffi et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis di-
mitto.

CHAP. H.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 627
God, and accordingly pronounces and declares him
absolved : As St. Jerom observes,1 the priests under the old
law were said to cleanse a leper or pollute him ; not that
they were the authors of his pollution, but that they de
clared him to be polluted, who before seemed to many to
have been clean. And in another place he makes a more
close remark concerning this matter,2 whilst he reflects upon
some bishops and presbyters in his own time, who, not un
derstanding the true meaning of the commission to remit
sins, assumed to themselves something of a pharisaical
pride and loftiness, so as to imagine they had power either
to condemn the innocent, or absolve the guilty: when yet
before God it is not the sentence of the priests, but the life
ofthe criminals that is enquired into. " We read in Levi
ticus concerning the lepers, where they are commanded to
shew themselves to the priests, and if they had the leprosy^
they were then to be polluted or made unclean by the priest :
not that the priests made them leprous or unclean, bnt be
cause they had the power of judging who were leprous or
not lepTous, and might discern who were clean or unclean.
As therefore the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so
the bishop or presbyter here binds or looses, not properly
making- the guilty or the guiltless ; butaccording to the tenor
of his office, when he hears the distinction of sins, he knows
who is to be bound, and who to be loosed. Upon this also the

1 Hieron. lib. vii. in Esai xxiii. De sacerdotibus in Levitico legimus,
contaminatione contaminabit eum sacerdos, non qudd contaminationis autor
sit, sed quod ostendateum contaminatum, qui prius mundus plurimus vide^
batur. 2 Hieron. in Mat. xvi. tom. 9. p. 49. Istum locum epis
copi et presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi de Pharissorum supercilio
assumunt, ut vel damnent innocentes, vel solvere se noxios arbitrentur:
ciim apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed reorum vita quaaratur.
Legimus in Levitico de leprosis, ubi jubentur, ut ostendant se sacerdotibus,
et si lepram habuerint, tunc a sacerdoteimmundi fiant : non quod sacerdotes
leprosos faciant et immundos, sed quod habeant notitiam leprosi et non leprow
si, et possint discernere qui mundus, quive immundus sit. Quomodo ergo
ibi leprosura sacerdos inundum vel immundum facit, sic et hie alligat vel
solvit episcopus et presbyter, non eos, qui insontes sunt vel noxii [faciens:]
sed pro officio suo, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus
sit, quive solvendus. I have supplied the word, faciens, which the sense
seems plainly to require.
2s2

628 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX
master ofthe sentences, following St. Jerom, observes,1 that
the priests of the gospel have that right and office, which
the legal priests had of old under the law in curing the
lepers. These therefore forgive sins or retain them, whilst
they shew and declare, that they are forgiven or retained by
God. For the priests put the name of the Lord upon the
children of Israel, but it was He Himself that blessed them,
as it is read in numbers , vi. 27.
3. The indicative form, I absolve thee, may be used in
the performance of any external act of the ministry, which
is used as a means to obtain remission of sins of God : as
in the administration of baptism or the eucharist. The
priest may as well say, I absolve thee, as I baptise thee :
for baptism is an absolution, as we have seen before : but
then the priest's part in it is only to administer the external
form ; but it is God that gives the internal grace, and spi
ritually baptises with remission of sins. Yet forasmuch as
the priest has power to minister the external form, he may
say, I baptise thee, or I wash thee with water : which wash
ing is the outward means appointed by God to convey to us
remission of sins, and the internal washing of our souls in
the blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost. So
likewise in the administration of the eucharist, a priest might
say, I give thee the body of Christ, or I absolve thee by the
body of Christ; meaning, that he ministered to him the out
ward element of bread, which is the sacramental body of
Christ, appointed to be used as a means to convey the real
body of Christ and all his benefits, whereof absolution or
remission of sins is one, to the worthy receiver. Our Church
has not appointed the indicative form of absolution to be
used in all these senses, but only once in the office of the
sick, and that may reasonably be interpreted, according to the
account given out of St. Jerom, a declaration of the sinner's
pardon, upon the apparent evidences of a sincere repentance,
and the best judgment the minister can make of his condi
tion ; beyond which none can go but the searcher of hearts,

1 Lombard. Sentent. lib. iv. dist. 18. p. 334.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 629
to whom alone belongs the infallible and irreversible sen
tence of absolution. But of this only by the way; I now re
turn to the practice of the primitive Church :
Sect. 7. — Why Chrism or Unction was sometimes added to Imposition of
Hands in the Reconciliation of certain Heretics and Schismatics to the
Church. Where we may observe, that besides the common way of
reconciling ordinary penitents to the Church, there was
something often very peculiar in the reconciliation of here
tics and schismatics. For they were considered under a
threefold denomination or distinction: either they were such
as had been baptised in the Church, and afterward fell away
from it : or secondly they were such as were baptised in
heresy or schism, but with the usual form of baptism: or
thirdly they were such as had been baptised by heretics or
schismatics by such a corrupted form, as destroyed the true,
nature and essence of the thing itself, and made it altogether
a null and void baptism. The first sort were reconciled
much after the same manner as other penitents, only making
a confession and abjuration of their errors. But the second
sort, because they wanted the true effect of baptism, that is,
the grace or unction of the Holy Spirit, which they could
not have out of the Church in heresy or schism, were
therefore reconciled not only with imposition of hands, but
with the holy unction or chrism added to it, to give them
confirmation, and denote their reception of the Holy Spirit
of peace upon their returning to the peace and unity of the
Church. And the third sort, because they wanted true bap
tism, were reeeived after the manner of heathens, with a
new baptism, because their first pretended baptism was al
together null and void. This was the distinction made be
tween those several sorts of heretics, and the true grounds
and reasons of the different observations in the Church's
discipline in their reconciliation and reception. The two
latter sorts of heretics were scarce looked upon as properly
penitents in the Church, but were rather received sub
imagine poenitentice, under the image and resemblance of

630 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
the penance that was usually performed by those, who had
once been members of the Church, as Pope Innocent in
forms us in one of his epistles; where, speaking of some, who
had been baptised by the Arians and other sects, who re
tained the due form of baptism, he says,1 " they received
them under the image of penance with imposition of hands
and sanctification of the Holy Spirit, to perfect their baptism,
which though given in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, yet wanted the grace of the Holy Spirit, which
they could not have but upon their return to the peace and
unity of the Catholic Church. Therefore then they received
them with imposition of hands, and the unction of chrism, if
they had not been anointed before." This he repeats in
several other places.8 And the same is confirmed by the tes
timonies of Siricius,3 and Leo,* and St. Jerom,5 and Genna-
dius,6 and the author under the name of Justin Martyr,7 and
the Councils of Orange8 and Epone:9 all which, because I
have had occasion more fully to represent them in another
work,10 I only just mention in this place, with this single re
mark, that the Council of Orange, and that of Epone, and
the author under the name of Justin, expressly mention the
ceremony of chrism, or anointing with holy oil ; which is
also appointed by the Council of Laodicea,11 and the general
Council of Constantinople,12 and the second Council of
Aries,13 and the Council of Trullo,1* to be used with imposi-

1 Innoc. Ep. xviii. ad Alexandrum, cap. 3. Eorum laicos conversos ad
Dominum, sub imagine poenitentiae ac Sancti Spiritus sanctificatione per
manQs impositionem suscipimus, &c. 2 Ibid. i. ad Victricium,
cap. viii. Ep. xxii. ad Episcopos Macedon. cap. 4, et 5.
s Siric. Ep. i. ad Himerium Tarracon. cap. i. * Leo. Ep. xxxvii.
ad Leonem Raven, cap. ii. Ep. xcii. ad Rusticum Narbon.cap. xvi.
6 Hieron. Dial. cont. Lucifer, cap. viii. 6 Gennad. de Eccles.
Dogm. cap. Iii. It. de Scriptor. Eccles. cap. xxvii. 'Justin.
Quaest. xiv. ad Orthodox. 8 Con. Arausic. i. can. 2. Haereticos
in mortis discrimine  cum chrismate etbenedictione consignari placet.
9 Con. Epaunen. can. xvi. Haereticis in lecto decumbentibus, presbytero
chrismate subvenire permittimus. 10 Scholast. Hist, of Bapt.
part i. chap. i. sect. 20, and 21. " Con. Laodic. can. vii.
18 Con. Constant, i. can. vii. IS Con. Arelat. ii. can. 17.
1* Con. Trull, can. cxvi.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 631
tion of hands in the reconciliation of such heretics as had
been baptised in any heresy or schism with the true form of
baptism, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ;
such are required only to renounce their errors, and learn
the true faith, and make profession of it; and then they were
to be reconciled with imposition of hands and chrism, which
was peculiar to this sort of penitents, who had never Wore
been united truly to the Catholic Church. They seem not
to have gone through all the stages of penance, as other
penitents did in the Church; but to have been reconciled in
a more compendious way, more suitable to their state and
condition, as strangers and foreigners now just entering
within the pale of the Church. For which reason Pope
Innocent styles their short penance only an image, or faint
resemblance of that penance, which held other penitents
often very long under the discipline of the Church.
Sect. 8. — Why some Heretics could be reconciled no other Way, but by a
new Baptism.
As to others, who had been baptised by such heretics as
had either wholly rejected, or greatly corrupted the true form
of baptism, there was a very different way of receiving and
reconciling them to the communion of the Church. For
they could be admitted no other way, but as heathens, by
the door of baptism ; seeing their former pretended baptism
was not only defective in some remoter circumstances, but in
the very form and essence of it, and therefore reputed abso
lutely null and void, and necessary to be repeated, in order to
make them members ofthe Church. Upon this account the
Council of Nice ordered the Samosatenians or Paulianists,1
upon their return to the Catholic Church, to be baptised.
The Council of Laodicea made a like order for the reconci
liation of the Montanists or Cataphrygians.2 The first
Council of Constantinople decreed the same for the Mon
tanists, Eunomians and Sabellians.3 The second Council of

1 Con. Nie. can. xix. * Con. Laodic. can, viii.
1 Con. Constant, can. vii.

g32 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
Aries adds the Photinians ;! and tbe Council of Trullo the
Manichees, Valentinians, Marcionites, and all others of the
like nature :2 that is, all such as had not been truly baptised
with due form of baptism. There was no other way. of re
conciling such to the Catholic Church, but by instructing and
training them up to the knowledge of the true faith, first
as catechumens, and then giving them the absolution of
baptism, which in this case was allowed to them, as having
never received any true baptism before. These were the
several ways of reconciling penitent heretics according to
the variety of their circumstances, and the different state
and condition they were in, when they desired to be re
united to the body of the Church.
Sect. 9.— What Conditions were required in the Reconciliation of those,
who fell from the Church into Heresy or Schism.
As for those who were baptised in the Church, and after
ward fell away into any heresy or schism, we find no other
way of reconciling them, but the common and ordinary
way of reconciling all other penitents, by • imposition of
hands and prayer. For, as I have noted before, if the first
baptism was valid, a second baptism was never allowed to
be given to any penitent by way of absolution. Yet some
greater hardships and severer conditions were often imposed
upon such apostates and deserters, before they could be
admitted to the peace of the Church again. If they were
ring-leaders and broachers of the heresy, who drew others
into their error and faction : it was commonly required,
that they should bring back the multitude, whom they had
deceived, before they obtained a perfect absolution. Thus,
Tertullian observes of Marcion,3 that he was promised to
be absolved only upon this condition, that he should reduce
those back again to the Church, whom he had led away by

1 Con. Arelat. ii. can. 16. s Con. Trull, can. xcvi.
3 Tertul. de Prescript, cap. xxx. Ita pacem recepturus, si caeteros quoque,
quos perditioni erudisset, ecclesiae restitueret, morte praeventus est.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 633
his doctrine into perdition : and he undertook to do this, but
death prevented him. Cyprian makes a like remark in the
ease of Tfophimus, one of the three bishops, who were con
cerned in giving Novatian an unlawful ordination, whereby
they set him up as anti-bishop against Cornelius, and Taised
a flaming schism in Rome : he says,1 his supplication for
re-admission was accepted, because by his humility and
satisfaction he brought back the people, whom he had
drawn into the schism ; ahd it was not so much Trophimus,
that was admitted again into the Church, as a great number of
the brethren, who had gone aside with him, and would not
have returned without their leader. And yet he was not
allowed to retain his episcopal office, but only to communi
cate in the quality of a layman. Sometimes it was required
of them, as a condition of their absolution, that they should
make discovery of the remainders of their faction. St.
Austin gives us an instance of this in his own treatment of
one Victorinus a subdeacon, who fled over to the sect of the
Manichees: when he returned again, and desired to find a
place for repentance, St. Austin refused to admit him, unless
he would give information of the rest of his party. Some
times they were required to anathematize their errors, and
abjure them in writing. The Council of Nice exacted this
condition of the Novatians ;3 and the Council of Gangra3
of the Eustathians ; and the second Council of Aries of the
Novatians ;* and the African Councils of the Donatists.5 The
Council of Laodicea insists upon the same from the Nova
tians, Photinians, and Quartadecimans.6 And the general
Council of Constantinople exacts it of the Macedonians,7

1 Cypr. Ep. iii. al. Iv. ad Antonian. p. 105. Fraternitatem, quam nuper
abstraxerat cum plena humilitate et satisfactione revocante Trophimo, au-
ditae sunt ejus preces; et in ecclesiam Domini non tam Trophimus, quam
maximus fratrum numerus, qui cum Trophimo fuerat, admissus est ; qui
omnes regressuri ad ecclesiam non essent, nisi cum Trophimo, comitante
venissent  sic tamen admissus est Trophimus, ut laicus communicet,
non quasi locum sacerdotis usurpet.
* Con. Nie. can. viii. s Con. Gangren. in Prooem.
* Con. Arelat. ii. can. 9. 6 Cod. Afric. can. lvii.
" Con. Laodic. can. 7. 7 Con. Const, i. can. 7.

634 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
Sabbatians, Arians, Novatians, Quartadecimans. And some
times they were required not only to anathematise error, and
subscribe the truth, but to take an oath for greater confir
mation : As Socrates says,1 Constantine obliged Arius to do,
though he did it fraudulently and like an impostor. This
was the precaution, which the Church used particularly in
the case of heretical apostates, to be ascertained of their
sincerity in making recantations, before she would receive
them into her communion again, or grant them absolution,
Sect. 10. — Of the Time of Absolution.
There is one circumstance more to be noted under this
head, which is the ordinary time of absolution : this seems
to have been fixed, in the ordinary course of discipline, to
the day of our Saviour's passion, or rather the day, on which
he was betrayed. For so St. Ambrose says expressly,2 that
on the day that our Lord gave himself for us, it was usual
in the Church to relax men's penance, or grant them absolu
tion. In the Roman Church, in the time of Pope Innocent,8
the custom was the same, to absolve penitents only upon
Thursday before Easter, except some sickness intervened,
and the penitent's life was despaired of: for then he might
be reconciled at any time, when necessity required, rather
than leave the world without the benefit of communion. It
was at or about this time also, that the emperors, perhaps
in imitation of this custom ofthe Church, were wont to send
forth their civil absolutions or indulgences, as they called
them, whereby at the paschal festival they granted pardon
to all criminals, who lay bound in prison for their faults, ex
cept some that were of a more malignant and unpardonable
nature. This practice was first begun by Valentinian, and

1 Socrat. lib. i. cap. 38. » Ambros. Ep. xxxiii. ad Mareellin.
Sororem. Erat dies,, quo Dominus sese pro nobis tradidit, quo in ecclesia
pcenitentia relaxatur. 3 Innoc. Ep. i. ad Decent, cap. vii.
Poenitentibus si nulla interveniat aegritudo, quinta feria ante Pascha remit-
tendum Roman™ ecclesias consuetudo demonstrat, &c. Vid. Hieron. Epi
taph. Fabiols.

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 635
continued by Thodosius and the succeeding Emperors; of
which there is a whole title in the Theodosian Code,1 to
mention no other writers at present that speak of it. The
monks, whopetitioned in behalf of Eutyches in the second
Council of Ephesus,2 plainly refer to both customs, the
sacred and the civil. For upon this day, say they, meaning
the paschal solemnity, the holy fathers relax the punishment
of many offenders: and the emperors loose the bonds of
those that are in chains for their transgressions. So that
this was the chief time of discharging both civil and eccle
siastical criminals, and in regard to each of them the dis
charge was styled (according to the nature of the thing,
either in a civil, or ecclesiastical sense) an absolution or
indulgence. Sect. 11. — How the Church absolved some Penitents, or received them
into Communion after Death.
We have hitherto considered the manner and circum
stances of absolution, as given to all sorts of penitents
whilst they were living. But besides this we are to take
notice of another way of absolving penitents, and receiving
men into communion even after death. For it sometimes
happened, that true penitents, and very good men, by acci
dent died under the censure of excommunication unrelaxed,
and so out of the external visible communion of the Church.
Which might happen in two cases, 1. When penitents
chanced to die suddenly, whilst they were diligently- per
forming their penance; or were in a journey, or at sea,
where they had no minister to give them a formal reconci
liation or absolution. 2. When innocent men were overborne
by some great and prevalent faction, and unjustly excom
municated, and never received into the external commun
ion of the Church by reason of the power that prevailed

1 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 38. de Indulgentiis Criminuni. leg. 3, 4, &c.
» Acta Synod. Ephes. in Act. i. Con. Chalcedon. Con. tom. iv. p. 277. Vid.
Action, x. ibid. p. 641. Another such instance out of the Council of
Perytus,

63f5 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
against them. For both these eases the Church provided a
remedy by using some ceremony to admit them into com
munion, or rather to acknowledge them to be in communion
after death. For penitents, who died suddenly whilst they
were carefully doing their penance, it was provided, that
notwithstanding this accident, they should be treated as per
sons dying in the communion of the Church, though they
wanted a formal reconciliation. To this purpose the fourth
Council of Carthage made a decree,1 that if any penitents,
who were diligently observing the rules of penance, hap
pened to die by any sudden accident, whilst they were on a
journey or at sea, where no assistance could be given
them, their memorials notwithstanding should be recom
mended both in the prayers and the oblations of the Church.
And the second Council of Vaison has an order ofthe same
nature, which is a little more particular :2 " If any of those,
who have submitted to the laws of penance, and in pursu
ance thereof lead a good life in all satisfactory compunc
tion, shall happen to be prevented by sudden death in the
country or in a journey, their oblations shall be received,
and their funeral obsequies and memorials be performed
after the manner and custom ofthe Church: because it were
unreasonable to exclude the commemorations of those
out of the sacred service, to which service they were labour
ing with all diligence and fidelity to attain ; and to whom
the bishop (though they chanced to be intercepted from re
ceiving the viaticum of the eucharist) would perhaps not
have thought it improper to have granted the most perfect

1 Con. Carth. iv. can. 79. Pcenitentes, qui attente leges poenitentia; ex-
equuntur, si casu in itinere vel in mari mortui fuerint, ubi eis subveniri non
possit, memoria eorum et orationibus et oblationibus commendetur.
2 Con. Valense. ii. can. 2. Horum, qui poenitentia accepta, in bona? vitae
cursu satisfactoria compunctione viventes, sine communione inopinato non-
liunquam transitu in agris aut itineribus praeveniantur, oblationem recipien-
dam, et eorum funera ac deinceps memoriam ecclesiastico affectu prosequen-
dam : quia nefas est eorum commemorationes excludi a. salutaribus sacris,-
qui ad eadem sacra ficleli affectu contendentes  absque sacramento
rum viatico intercipiuntur, quibus fortasse nee sacerdos absolutissimam
reconciliationem denegandam putasset,

CHAP. II.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 637
reconciliation. The practice of the Roman Church indeed
was otherwise in the time of Pope Leo, as appears from
some of his Epistles:1 but their practice was almost singu
lar: for the general current was against them, inclining to
the more favourable side in behalf of such penitents as
died suddenly without reconciliation. Which is observed
by the Fathers in the eleventh Council of Toledo, who
thereupon determine,2 that though there were different rules
about this matter, yet it was more proper to follow the ma
jority, which decreed on the favourable side in behalf of
such penitents, that their memorial should be recommended
in the Church, and that the presbyters should receive their
oblations. As to the other sort of persons, who were un
justly excommunicated by the power of some prevailing
faction, the way of restoring them to the external commu
nion of the Church after death, was by inserting their names
into the diptychs of the Church (as Theodoret tells us it3
was done by Atticus in the case of Chrysostom) which was
enough to restore them after death to the communion and
fellowship of the faithful. And so I have done with the
circumstances and ceremonies observed in the ancient man
ner of absolution.

1 Leo. Ep. xc. al 92. ad Rustic, cap. vi. Ep. 89. ad Theodor.
8 Con. Tolit. xi. can. 12. De his autem qui accepta poenitentia, antequam
reconciliarentur, ab hac vita recesserint, quanquam diversitas praeceptorum
de hoc.capitulo habeatur : illorum tamen nobis sententia placuit, qui multi-
plici numero de hujusmodi humanius decreverunt, ut et memqria talium in
ecclesiis commendetur, et oblatio pro eorum delicto a presbyteris recipiatur.
* Theod. lib. v. cap. 34. Vid. Con. C. Pol. sub Menna, Act. 5. in the case
of Leo, Euphemius, and others.

638 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.

CHAP. HI.
Of the Minister of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and particu
larly ofthe Minister of Absolution.
Sect. 1.— All the Power of Discipline primarily lodged in the Hands
of the Bishop.
There remains but one thing more to be examined in this
matter, relating to the exercise of discipline iu the practice
of the Church ; and that is, by what hands it was managed1?
who ordinarily had ihe power of the spiritual sword? And
who particularly was the proper minister of absolution]
Thata.l the power of discipline was primarily lodged in the
hands of the bishop, as all other offices of the Church, is a
malter uncontested, and evident from the whole foregoing
history and account of the practice of the Church. For the
canons always speak of the bishop, at least in conjunction
with his ecclesiastical senate, his presbytery, as cutting off
offenders from the Church, and imposing penance upon
them; and then again examining their proficiency, and either
lengthening their penance, or moderating it by his indul
gence; and finally admitting them to the communion of the
Church by absolution.
Sect. 2. — This in many Cases committed to Presbyters either by a general
or particular Commission.
And this, so far as the bishop could manage it, might be
retained solely to himself, and exercised at his own discre
tion. But because the necessities of the Church required
in many cases, that part of this burden should devolve upon
others, and the bishop was not able personally to discharge
the whole of it to all that needed : therefore presbyters, as
his proper assistants, were taken in to be sharers and fellow-
labourers with him. They had a general commission to

CHAP. HI.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 639
grant the great indulgence or absolution of baptism, and
that of the eucharist, and the word and doctrine to all that
needed : and though they were more restrained in the ex
ercise of public discipline, and the final reconciliation of
publie penitents by imposition of hands and prayer ; vet the
intermediate imposition of hands upon the penitents in their
daily exercise was often committed to them : and by the
bishop's leave they might give the final reconciliation to
public penitents, either openly in the Church, or privately on
a sickbed, when necessity and the fear of imminent death
required a speedier absolution. This is evident from tbe
very canons, which restrain the power of presbyters in re
conciling public penitents, and reserve it solely to the
bishop: they still admit of these limitations and exceptions.
The second Council of Carthage has two canons, which
thus divide the matter between them. The first says,1 a
presbyter shall not reconcile any penitent in the publie ser
vice. But the other immediately adds,2 that if any one be in
danger of death, and desires to be reconciled to the altar, if
the bishop be absent, the presbyter shall consult the bishop,
and so reconcile him at his command. And so the third
Council of Carthage determined,3 that a presbyter should not
reconcile a penitent without consulting the bishop, unless
the bishop was absent and necessity compelled him. The
Council of Orange made a like decree about reconciling
such penitents as had been baptised by heretics,* that in case
they were in danger of death, and desired to be made Ca
tholics, if the bishop was absent, a presbyter should con
sign them with chrism and the benediction. And the Coun-

1 Con. Carth. ii. can. 3. Recoiiciliare quenquam in publica missa, pres
bytero non licere, hoc omnibus placet. 3 Ibid. can. iv. Si
quisquam in periculo fuerit constitutus, et se reconciliari divinis altanbus
petierit, si episcopus absens fuerit, debet utique presbyter consulere epis
copum, et sic periclitantem ejus praecepto reconciliare.
' Con. Carth. iii. can. 32. Ut presbyter incor.sulto episcopo non reeonciliet
poenitentem, nisi absente episcopo, et necessitate cogente. * .Con'
Arausican i can. 2. Haereticos iu mortis discriinine positos, si catholici esse
desiderent, si desit episcopus, a Presbyteris cum chrismate et benedictione
consignari placet.

640 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
cil of Epone has a like order,1 that if any heretics, who lay
desperately sick upon their beds, desired suddenly to be
converted, in that case, for the salvation of their souls,
which was heartily desired, a presbyter should be permit
ted to give them the consolation of Chrism, that is, both
confirmation and reconciliation, which those, that were in
health, were only to desire of the bishop. And that this was
the ancient rule of the Church, appears from the letters of
Dionysius,2 Bishop of Alexandria, in Eusebius, where he
says, he had given orders to his presbyters to grant absolu
tion to all that were on the point of death, if they desired
it ; and especially if they had desired it before, that they
might have hope and consolation in their last minutes, when
they were about to leave the world.
Sect. 3.— And to Deacons also.
Neither was this commission and licence granted only to
presbyters, but to deacons also. For as they were allowed
to give men the absolution of baptism, in cases of extreme
necessity, so they were authorised to grant penitents the re-
conciliatory absolution in the same circumstances likewise.
For so the Council of Eliberis seems to determine,3 that
though presbyters ordinarily had not power to admit any
one to penance, but only the bishop : yet in case of in
firmity both presbyters and deacons ought to receive peni
tents to the communion, having the bishop's command to do
it. This is more plainly delivered by Cyprian, who says,* if
1 Con. Epaunen. can. xvi. Presbytero, propter salutem animarum, quam
in cunctis optamus desperatis, et in lecto decumbentibus haereticis, si con-
versionem subitam petant, chrismate subvenire permittimus. Quod etiam
omnes conversuri; si sani sunt, ab episcopo noverint expetendum.
3 Ap. Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 44. 8 Con. Eliber. can. 32. Apud presby
terum, si quis gravi lapsu in ruinam mortis inciderit, placuit agere poeniten
tiam non debere, sed potius apud episcopum; cogente tamen infirmitate, ne
cesse est presbyterum communionem prestare debere, et diaconum, si ei
jusserit sacerdos. * Cypr. Ep. xiii. al. 18. p. 40. Si incommodo
aliquo et infirmitatis periculo occupati fuerint, non expectata praesentia
nostra, apud presbyterum quemcunque praesentem, vel si presbyter repertns
non fuerit, et urgere exitus coeperit, apud diaconum quoque exomologesin
facere delicti sui possint; ut manu eis in poenitentia imposita, veniant ad
Dominum cum pace. Vid. Ep. xiv. al. 19. p. 41.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 641
penitents were seized with any calamity, and were in appa
rent danger of death, in the absence of the bishop, they
might make their confession before any presbyter that was
present; br, if a presbyter could not be found, before a dea
con, and receive imposition of hands, that they might go to
the Lord in peace. It is plain also, that the clergy had
some share with the bishop in the more public and solemn
absolutions : because Cyprian often complains of some for
ward men,1 who were desirous of having the eucharist grant
ed them, before they had received the solemn imposition of
hands from the bishop and the clergy to reconcile them to
the altar.

Sect. 4. — How far, and in what Sense Absolution might be said to be given
by a Layman.
But as presbyters and deacons did nothing alone in this
matter without the bishop, but either in conjunction with
him, or by his authority and permission : so much less was
this power intrusted in the hands of any layman. Only in case
of extreme necessity, some canons allowed a layman to give
baptism to a catechumen (which was reputed, as we have
heard before, one sort of absolution) rather than he should
die unbaptized. This is evident from the decree made in the
Council of Eliberis,9 that in a voyage at sea, or in any place
where there was no church near at hand, if a catechumen
happened to be extremely sick, and at the point of death,
any Christian, who had his own baptism entire, and was no
bigamist, might baptize him. And the sentiments of Ter
tullian, St. Jerom, and St. Austin, with several others that
have been canvassed in another book,3 shew, that this was
not the singular opinion of that Council. As to the other
sacrament, we no where find, that either deacons or laymen

1 Cypr. Ep. 10. al. 16. p. 37. Nondum manu eis ab episcopo et clero im
posita, Eucharistia illis datur, &c. Ep. xi. al. 15. p. 34. Ante manum ab
episcopo et clero in poenitentiam impositara, &c. Ep. xii. al. 17. p. 39.
3 Cpn. Eliber! can. 38. 3 Scholast. Hist, of Lay-baptism,, par. i.
chap.i. sect. 8, &c. 2 T

VOL. VI.

642 THB ANTIQUITIES OF THK [BOOK XIX.
were allowed to consecrate it; that being the office of pres
byters only. Neither were laymen allowed to minister pub
licly either the bread or the cup, when consecrated, to the
people: for that was the standing office of deacons. Yet a
layman in case of absolute necessity might carry and minis
ter the consecrated bread and wine in private to a dying
person, and so far be instrumental in his absolution : as ap
pears from that famous case related by Eusebius,1 out of Dio
nysius of Alexandria, concerning Serapion, who had the
eucharist sent him by the priest, and given him by the hands
of his servant. But the remark, which Bishop Fell-makes
upon this, is very just:B that whatever necessity compels
men to do, it defends, but only so far and so long as the
necessity lasts. It is a known story in Eusebius, of the eu
charist being transmitted to Serapion by a boy : yet no one
may thence infer, that therefore children may dispense those
holy mysteries. He thinks the same reason holds for dea
cons reconciling penitents in case of extreme necessity : that
it was an extraordinary case ; and no consequence is to be
drawn from necessity and extraordinary cases, to prejudice
the ordinary rules and standing measures of the Church. If
men exceed their commission, and excommunicate or ab
solve without power, they are themselves liable to censure
for their usurpation, and the Church may reverse all such
irregular acts by her own just authority at pleasure. There
fore when the Council of Ephesus had deposed Nestorius
and Coelestius for their heresy, and reduced them to the
state of laymen, she declared,3 that she took from them all
the power of the priesthood, which enabled them to do good
or harm to others, that is, either to excommunicate or ab
solve. And whereas Nestorius after this pretended to depose
some clerks from their priestly office for their orthodoxy,
the synod declared his act a nullity,* and that the priests so
deposed should be restored to their station again. And on
1 Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 44. See before chap i. sect. 3. Where the whole
story is more fully related. s Not. in Cypr. Ep. xviii. p. 40.
8 Con. Ephes. in Epist. Encyclica. Con. torn. iii. p. 804. * Con.
Ephes. can. iii.

CHAP. ni.J CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 643
the other hand, whereas Nestorius and his accomplices
had attempted to restore those to communion, or their order,
whom the synod had condemned, the synod declared, this
should not profit them ;l they should remain excommunicate
or deposed notwithstanding. This shews, that neither lay
men, nor clerks reduced to the state of laymen, had any
power of binding or loosing by the ordinary rules of disci
pline in the Church. And so, Theodoret says,2 a certain
bishop told Theodosius Junior, when he was under some
concern for being rashly excommunicated by a monk. The
good Emperor was uneasy even under an unjust exeommu-.
nieation by an incompetent authority pronounced against
him, and would not sit down to meat till he was absolved.
For which purpose he sent to the bishop, to desire him to
engage the person, who had bound him, to come and ab
solve him ; the bishop told him, it did not belong to every
one to excommunicate, and therefore he was absolved al
ready: yet this did not satisfy the emperor, till the man
was found out, to come himself, and restore him to the com
munion of the Church. The bishop's answer in this case
was certainly very just; but the emperor, being a man o£
a tender conscience, could not entirely rest upon it. Per
haps he was sensible he had done the monk some personal
injury, in which case personal satisfaction was to be made,
and private pardon to be asked, according to that rule of
our Savionr, " If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there
rememberest that thy brother hath oughtagainst thee ; leave
there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way ; first be re
conciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy g'ift."
In this case every man has power to pardon the sins of his
brother, and also to admonish him, and instruct him, and
pray for him, which are private and remote ways of recon
ciling him to the altar: it is of these St. Austin speaks3 in

1 Con. Ephes. can. v. 3 Theodor. lib. v. cap. 37,. a Aug. Tract.
58 in Joan. tom. ix. p. 164. Invicem nobis delictadoneinus, et pro nostris
delictis invicem oremus, atque ita quodammodo invicem pedes nostros lave-
mus, &c. Ut quod aliis etiam diniitiimus, hoc est, in te.i-4 solviiuus, solvutur
trt in ctclo.

644 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE [BOOK XIX.
conformity to that precept of the Apostle, Col. iii. 13. " For
giving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any;
even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." " Let us for
give one another's sins," says he, " and pray for the sins of
each other, and so in some measure wash one another's
feet. 'Tis our part, by the gift of God, to use the ministry
of charity and humility; but it belongs to God to hear our
prayers, and cleanse us from all pollution of sins by Christ
and in Christ, that what we forgive unto others, that is to
say, what we loose upon earth, may be loosed in heaven,"
This is so necessary a part of Christian duty, that no one
may forego this way of loosing his brother, under pain of
having his own sins retained by God. " For if we forgive
men their trespasses, our heavenly Father will also forgive
us : but if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither will
our Father forgive our trespasses." Upon which one of
the Ancients observes,1 that we bind ourselves the faster in
our own sins, if we refuse to loose the bonds of others. And
nothing is more common among the Fathers than to say,
men bind themselves, or are bound by others, when they ¦
trespass against them, and never ask forgiveness : and that
they loose themselves or others from sin, either by aims-
deeds, or charity, or converting of sinners, or praying for
them, or remitting their trespasses committed against them.
With respect to binding St. Austin says,2 when any brother
sins against another, and he thereupon begins to esteem him
as a publican, he binds him on earth ; but he must take
care that he bind him justly, for unjust bonds are broken by
the justice of God. And for loosing, Origen reckons up
seven ways, whereby Christians may obtain remission of
sins, whereof five are apparently private actions of private

1 Sedulius Carm. Paschal, lib. ii. Bibl. Patr. tom. viii. p. 665.
Graviusque soluti
Nectimur, alterius si solvere vinc'la negemus.
2 Aug. de Verbis Dom. Serm. xvi. cap. 4. Coepisti habere fratrem tuum
tanquam publicanum: ligas ilium in terra. Sedut juste alliges, vide: nam
injusta vincula dirumpit justitia.

CHAP. III.] CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 645
men. The first is baptism, whereby men are baptized for
the remission of sins.1 The second is the suffering of mar
tyrdom. The third is almsdeeds. For our Saviour says,
" give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you." The
fourth is forgiving the sins of our brethren. For our Lord
and Saviour says, " If ye from your heart forgive your bre
thren their trespasses, your Father will forgive your tres
passes." The fifth is, when one converts a sinner from the
error of his ways. The sixth is the abundance of charity, as
our Lord says, " her sins, which are many, are forgiven,
because she loved much." The seventh is the hard and la
borious way by penance, when a man waters his couch with
his tears, and his tears are his bread day and night, and he
is not ashamed to declare his sin to the priest of the Lord,
and seek a cure. The first and last of these, viz. baptism
and penance, are public acts, in which the ministry of the
priest is concerned : but all the rest, martyrdom, almsdeeds,
forgiving injuries, converting sinners, and exceeding love
of God are private actions of private men, and may be per
formed by any good Christian. And therefore the remission
of sins, that is ascribed to them, is no peculiar act of the
ministry, but may be the act of any private Chris
tian. Consequently so far laymen may be concerned in the
remission of sins without any intrenchment upon the minis
try : But these being only private acts, are of no further
consideration in the present discourse, which only relates
to ministerial absolution, and the public discipline of the
Church. I have now gone over all that relates to the exercise of
penitential discipline, so far as concerns the practice of the
ancient Church. As for doctrinal points, such as the ques
tion, whether penance be properly a sacrament? And whe
ther sacerdotal absolution be necessary to salvation ? These
come not directly within the design of the present undertak
ing, which only considers the practice of the Church. But
because I have had occasion to write some little tracts upon

1 Orig. Hom. ii. in Levit. tom.i. p.lll.

646 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THK [BOOK XIX.
the latter question, and it will not be unacceptable to some
readers to see them made public, I shall here subjoin them
by way of appendix to the present Discourse.

Note. — As my Great-Grandfather (the learned author)
himself states, that the two sermons, which in the original
edition formed the Appendix, " do not come directly
within the design of the present undertaking;" and as this
volume already contains a greater quantity of letter-press
than any of the preceding ; and further, as I have a third
sermon to print, bearing in some measure on the same sub
ject, I. have resolved to place them, together with several
other seimons on abstruse points of divinity, in one of the
subsequent volumes. R. B. Editor.

Ruoebsuk & Co. Printers, 10, Old Bos* ell Court, Carey .strati.

3 9002 00952 6816

¦;--'¦.-
¦¦-¦:..-

..." ' " '