« AnteriorContinua »
θείροήτες, ως αλώπειες μικροί αμπελώνα. φui Ecclesiam Dei devastant, sicut parvie vulpes vineam. vi. 18.
Ignatius, Epist. Interpol. ad Philad. iii. ésmárcing, çooptus auten@ros Xpiső. est vulpes corruptrix vinece Christi.
Cantic. ii. 15. Πιάσατε ημϊν αλωπικας μικρες αφανίζοντας dutenāras. Take us the little foxes that spoil the vines.
So, according to the Constitutions, and the interpolated Ignatius, the heretics are the little foxes who spoil the vineyards. I blame not the allusion; it is pretty enough, and better than the remark of a commentator whom I will not name, who, explaining 1 Kings x. 22. Once in three years came the nuvy of Tarshish, bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks, says, that by the apes we are to understand heretics *. He bears somewhat hard upon the poor ape, who is an occasional conformist, and an imitator of his betters. What would they say to this allusion who reject Solomon's Song, and yet receive the Constitutions, and the larger Epistles of Ignatius ?
But it would not be fair to conceal a passage in Theocritus, i. 48.
δυ' αλώπεκες" α μέν αν όρχως
ordines via tium Incedit, laedens maturas uvas. And v. 112.
Μισέω τας δασυκέρκος αλωπεκας, αι τα Μίκωνος
He might as well have said, since he would allegorize, that the apes are informers and back-biters, for the bite of an ape is reckoned dangerous, and so is the bite of a sycophant. Aj[ure Curope118 is men. tioned as incurable by Aristophanes, Plui. 886.
Oili densicaudes vulpes, quæ vitis Miconis
Semper frequentantes, resperi ex illis was comedunt. For here also are fores spoiling the vineyards; and who knows but somebody may take it into his head to say, that the Constitutions and Ignatius borrowed the hint from the poet?
This interpolated Ignatius cites the Canticles as a sacred book, Ad Ephes. xvii. Müper yeg, pnoir, ixxeraber öroμα σε δια τετο νεάνιδες ηγάπησάν σε, είλκυσαν σε, πίσω εις οσμής Kúpar ox Spar pouchun Unguentum enim, inquit, effusum est nomen tuum : propterea adolescentulæ dilexerunt te, traxerunt te, post te in odorem unguentorum tuorum curre
From Cant. i. 3, 4. It seems to appear from the Constitutions, that the curing of dæmoniacs was a work of time, and that the attempt did not always succeed ; for the congregation is made to consist of the clergy, the catechumens, the energumens, or dæmoniacs, the owłazómerot
, or those who were preparing to receive baptism, the penitents, and the faithful ; there is a form of prayer for the energumens, that God would deliver them, viii. 7. and it is said, that a dæmoniac may be instructed in the faith, but shall not be received to Chri. stian communion before he be cleansed, unless he be in danger of dying, viii. 32. In a prayer for all mankind, there is a petition for the dæmoniacs-tip tür χειμαζομένων υπό το άλλορία-όπως καθαρίσης έχ της ενεργείας τη Gergő-pro üs qui ub Adversario jactantur-ut cos mundes a vexatione Mali. viii. 12. 'Eco Tis Saci mowa čx?, xanρικός μη γινέσθω, αλλά μηδέ τοις σιρούς συνευχέσθω. καθαρισθείς δε, agood+xi55w, nije imao na 106, yuvéstw. Si quis Dæmonem habeut, ne fiat Clericus, sed nec una cum fidelibus oret : cum autem purgatus fuerit, recipiatur, et, si dignus extiterit, Clericus fut. Canon Ixx.
Is it not probable that the ancient Christians accounted mad, and melancholy, and epileptic people to be possessed, at least for the most part? which would greatly increase the number of dæmoniacs., The Jews seem to liave received some additional notions concerning evil spirits and their operations from the Chaldeans, and, after their return from the captivity, to have ascribed many diseases and disorders to these invisible agents, besides those which were not to be accounted for by natural causes; and in this the ancient Christians followed them.
Lightfoot says, Judæis usitatissimum erat morbos quosdam graviores, eos præsertim, quibus distortum erat corpus, vel mens turbata et agitata phrenesi, malis spiritibus attribuere. Hor. Hebr. Hence those swarms of energumens and exorcists mentioned in ecclesiastical history.
The Constitutions perhaps command, but most certainly permit infant-baptism. Βαπτίζετε δε υμών και τα νήта,
xai éx?pépéle aúta tv wasdeice aj vo Onciçe Oið. but baptize eden (or also ) your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God; which shews, that infantbaptism was practised when this book was written. There is no eluding this testimony ; it signifies nothing to say, that ther is a word which may be extended beyond infancy, to thirteen or fifteen years : for, first, Christian education and instruction are mentioned as subsequent to baptism ; secondly, in general precepts the obvious and usual signification of the words is to be supposed the intention of the lawgiver; thirdly, it is plain to the last degree, that the word vámics, or vázior, will not exclude infants of a day old, Ut contra si quis sentiat, nihil sentiat;
fourthly, the sentence is partly borrowed from Ephes. vi. 4.-μή παροργίζετε τα τέκνα υμών, αλλ' έκθρέφετε αυτα εν ταιδεία και νοθεσία Κυρία, but, instead of τέκνα, νήπια is used, as denoting a more tender age. In the prayer for the faithful, a petition is offered up for Christian infants -των νηπίων της εκκλησίας μνημονεύσωμεν, όπως ο Κύριος, τελειώσας αυτα εν τω φόβω αυτη εις μέτρον ηλικίας αγαύη. Infantium Ecclesice recordemur, uti Dominus eos in timore sui reddat perfectos, et ad mensuram cetatis perducat. viii. 10. te rámia Spurov. infantes ad maturam cetatem perduc, viii. 13. Will any man be so unreasonable as to contend, that vámia here does not include babes, and that infants, be. fore they could walk and speak, were excluded from the benefit and intention of these prayers ?
Thus infant-baptisin may be proved by the Constitutions ; but at the same time the silence of the Scriptures upon this subject, compared with the clear declarations of the Constitutions, shews that these were drawn up after the apostolical age, vi. 15.
It is observable, however, that viii, 32, where directions are given who shall be admitted to baptism, no mention is made of infants.
The Constitutions make the validity of baptism to depend upon a certain form of invocation, and they seem to make it depend also upon the piety of the priest, which is a hard case.
In the ceremonial of baptism, when the person is anointed, there is a form of prayer to be used; for, Say they, εαν μή εις έκαςον τέτων επίκληση γέναι παρα το ευσεβες ιερέως τοιαύτη τις, εις ύδωρ μονον καλαβαίνει ο βαπτιζόμενος, ως Ιεδαίοι, και αποτίθεται μόνον τον τύπον τα σώματος, και τον τύπον της yuxñs. Nisi in unumquodque eorum talis qucepiam inzocatio a pio sacerdote udhibeatur, qui baptizatur in aquam tantum descendit, ut Judæi, et corporis tantum sordes,
min utem animce deponit. Where Cotelerius says,
LOquitur de baptismate ordinaria adulturnem, quod nisi sedia lo ac rite juxta totan ceriinonian tradatur a pio sacerdote, et suscipiatur a pio catechumeno, aniince sordes non depellit, nec suum obtinet effectum.
In the middle of the third century, great disputes arose concerning rebaptizing those who had been baptized by heretics. The Constitutions and Canons determine, that the baptism administered by heretics is invalid and null, vi. 15. which was the doctrine of Cyprian. In this controversy, no appeal was made to the Constitutions, vii. 44.
The Constitutions represent adultery as a crime wlich was punished with death ; Ε τις αδελφόν λέγων έαυτον είναι, απατηθείς υπό το Πονηρά κακοποιήση, και έλευχθεις καζακριθή θανάτω ως μοιχός, ή φονεύς, χωρίζεσθε απ' αυτο--Si quis se fratrem esse dicens, Diaboli fraude maleficium commuiserit, convictusque ad mortem dumnatus fuerit, tanquam adulter, aut homicida, digredimini ab illo. v. 2.
Constantine made a law to punish adultery with death ; and before his time it had not been a capital crime, in that sense, in the Roman empire. The Le.c Julia de Adulteriis coercendis is discussed in Digest. L. xlviii. Tit. 5. but we are not clearly informed thero what was the punishment. It seems to have been relegatio, a kind of banishment. See Tacitus Ann. ii. 50. and the notes of Vertranius, and Lipsius ; Ann. iv. 42. and the Excursus of Lipsius, and Novell. cxxxiv. 10. and a Treatise of Gerard Noodt, called Diocletianus et Maximianus, sive de transuctione et pactione criminum. In some cases, however, the father and the husband had a right to kill the guilty person, surprised in the crime. L2