1. 50. 106 Martyrdom full remission of sins. APOL. exhort men to endure pain and death, as Cicero in his Tusculans, Seneca in his treatise "on chances," Diogenes, Pyrrho, Callinicus; and yet their words do not gain as many disciples, as the Christians do in teaching by their acts. That very obstinacy, with which ye upbraid us, is the teacher. For who is not stirred up by the contemplation of it to enquire what there is in the core of the matter? who, when he hath enquired, doth not join us? when he hath joined us, doth not desire to suffer, that he may purchase the whole grace of God, that he may gain from Him perfect forgiveness at the price of his own blood? for all crimes are pardoned for the sake of the work. Therefore is it that we, at the same time that we are judged, thank you for your judgment. Such enmity is there between the things of God and the things of men; when we are condemned by you, we are absolved by God. more it is oppressed." Add c. 23. Orig. Drosid. §. 2. Hom. 33. (ol. 34.) in S. Matt. Hom. 4. in 1 Cor. §. 10. ad eos qui scandaliz. l. i. c. 23. (quoted ib.) b On martyrdom, as a second Baptism, see de Bapt. c. 16. de Patient. c. 13. Scorp. c. 6. Cyprian Exhort. ad Mart. Præf. de Orat. Dom. c. 16. Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. Auct. de rebapt. ap. Cypr. p. 364. Hil. in Ps. 118. lit. 3. §. 5. Greg. Naz. Or. 39. in S. Lum. §. 17. and Pelag. in Rom. 6. (in connection with Luk. xii. 50.) Cypr. ap. Aug. de Bapt. iv. 22. (with the penitent Thief.) Cyril Jer. iii. 10. (coll. Mark x. 38.) Origen Tr. 12. in Matt. p. 85. and Aug. de Civ. D. xiii. 7. (coll. Matt. x. 32.) Orig. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 4. (as "baptism of fire.") S. Chrys. Serm. de S. Lucian. (Bapt. with the Holy Ghost.) Constt. Ap.v. 6. and Basil de Sp. S. c. 15. (dies really with his Lord, coll. Rom. vi. 3.) Jerome Ep. 69. ad Ocean. §. 6. t. i. p. 418. Gennad. de Eccl. Dogm. c. 74. (with other grounds.) (as sanctified by the Blood from His Side.) Ambros. de Virginit. iii. 7. 34. Jerome Ep. 84. ad Pamm. et Ocean. v. fin. Apostolic decree, Acts xv, binding upon later times. 107 NOTES TO THE APOLOGY. Note A, p. 23. chap. ix. THE use of blood as food, is spoken of as prohibited to Christians, in all Churches, from the earliest to the latest times. The early authorities are, Ep. Lugd. et Vienn. 1. c. Clem. Pædag. iii. 3. fin. Strom. iv. 15. Tert. here and de Monogam. c. 5. Orig. c. Cels. viii. 30. p. 763. ed. de la Rue in Num. Hom. 16. v. fin. p. 334. Can. Ap. 63. Minut. F. p. 300. Cyril Jer. iv. 28. xvii. 29. S. Ambrose, (apparently) in Ps. 118. Serm. 13. §. 6. Gaudentius (de Maccab. Tr. 15. Bibl. Patr. Max. t. v. p. 967.) Ambrosiaster (ad Gal. ii. 3.) even while arguing against the Greeks, as if tõ, tuxtäv had been interpolated by them, " it having," he says, "been already expressed," [i. e. things strangled were virtually comprised in the prohibition of blood; quia jam supra dictum erat, quod addiderunt.] Jerome (in Ezek. xliv. 31. which, he says, according to the letter, is properly referred to all Christians, as being a royal priesthood," and that "the letter of the Apostles from Jerusalem directs" that these things "are of necessity to be observed," et quæ necessario observanda....monet) the Author of the Quæstt. et Respons. ad Orthod. qu. 145. Vigilius Taps. (A. D. 484.) employs the text (Acts xv.) as a proof of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit," the Holy Spirit having promulgated these things, all the Churches of Christ have kept them,” whereas “ no created thing had been allowed to give law to the world," (de Trin. 1. xii. fin.) S. Chrysostom (Hom. 33. in Actt. §. 3.) says the Apostles "shew that it was no matter of condescension to infirmity (avyxaraßários), nor because they spared them as weak, but the contrary; for these had a great reverence for their teachers; but that that [i. e. all beside] was a superfluous [as opposed to a necessary] burthen." Of Councils, that of Gangra (A. D. 364.) seems to assume that it is not used, Can. 2. "If any condemn one who with reverence and faith eats flesh, save blood and things offered to idols and strangled,” (Conc. t. ii. p. 496. ed. Reg.) In the second Council of Orleans (A. D. 533.) Catholics are excommunicated, "who should use food offered to idols, or feed on what had been slain by beasts, or died of any disease or accident." Can. 20. (Conc. t. xi. p. 164.) The Council of Trullo, (Quini-Sext.) A. D. 692. Can. 67. rehearses, "Divine Scripture hath commanded to abstain from blood, and strangled, and fornication, wherefore we punish proportionably ON APOL. 108 Things strangled-African deviation sanctions the principle. NOTES those who for appetite's sake, by any act prepare the blood of any animal whatsoever, so as to be eatable. If then henceforth any essay to eat the blood of an animal in any way soever, if a clerk, let him be deposed, if lay, excommunicated." Balsamon (ad Can. 67. p. 444.) notes that this Canon was directed against such as maintained that they observed the injunction of Holy Scripture in that they did not eat mere blood, but food prepared of other things with it; against which he says the Novell. 58. of the Emperor Leo, the philosopher, (A. D. 886.) was also directed, severely punishing all such. "Things strangled" are either mentioned with blood, (as in Clem. Strom. 1. c. Orig. c. Cels. 1. c. Minut. F. 1. c. Cyril J. 1. c. &c. or are counted as included in it, as in Ambrosiaster 1. c. and Aug. c. Faust. 32. 13. "and from blood,' i. e. that they should not eat any flesh, the blood whereof was not poured out." There would however be the difference, that blood was forbidden by a law antecedent to the Mosaic (which ground is given in the Const. Ap. vi. 22.) and it may have an inherent sacredness, or there may be an inherent impropriety in eating it. Some distinction, accordingly, seems to be made; as when S. Augustine, controverting Faustus, maintains the Apostolic decree to be temporary only, and appeals to the practice of Christians, he instances "things strangled" only, and of these the smaller animals, in which the blood would not be perceptible. “Who among Christians now observes this, as not to touch thrushes, or other birds however small, (minutiores aviculas,) unless their blood had been poured out, or a hare, had it been struck on the back of the neck with the hand, not killed so as to let out blood?" (1. c.) S. Augustine's principles go further, but he seems to have been restrained by a sort of instinct: the instances, which he gives of the violation of the Apostolic decree, are such as scarcely touch upon the use of "blood;" in which there would be the least possible blood, and that unknown to those who used the food. In like way, Balsamon (1. c. A. D. 1124.) speaking of the Latin practice as opposed to the Greek, names "things strangled" only. "The Latins eat things strangled as being a matter indifferent." As to the later practice, in the Eastern Churches, Balsamon notes, "the Adrianopolitans, as I hear, use the blood of animals with some food; else they uniformly abstain." The Canonists, Zonaras, Alexius Aristenus, (A.D. 1166.) Matt. Blastarius, (A.D. 1335.) ap. Beveridg. Pandectæ, Canon. i. 41. 237. agree with Balsamon: Leo Allatius, de Eccl. Or. et Occ. consensu, iii. 14. p. 1167. adds Macarius Hieromonachus, and cites Leo Abp. of Bulgaria, Ep. 1. (A.D. 1051.) Joann. Citrius, (A. D. 1203.): Curcellæus de esu Sang. c. 13. quotes, "as to the Greeks, Nilus, Abp. of Thessalonica (A.D. 1360.) de primatu papæ; on the Muscovites and Russians, Herberstein; on the Abyssinians, a Gorr. de Mor. Æth.; on the Maronites of Syria, Brerewood de divers. Ling. et Relig. The practice of the Æthiopians is attested by Scaliger, de Emend. Temp. 1. vii. p. 683. (quoted by Bev.) In the West, it is noticed that Zacharia, Bishop of Rome, (A. D. 741.) in a letter to Boniface, the Abp. of Germany, (Conc. t. xvii. p. 413.) forbids several animals, probably on the ground of their being things strangled. Apostolic decree obeyed very long in West; in the East until now. 109 Humbert, Cardinal under Leo IX. (A. D. 1054.) in answering the charge of the Greeks, that they ate " things strangled," limits the defence to cases of necessity. "Nor, so saying, do we claim to ourselves, against you, the use of blood and things strangled. For, diligently following the ancient practice or tradition of our ancestors, we also abhor these things, so that a heavy penance is, among us, from time to time, imposed upon such as, without extreme risk of this life, eat blood, or any thing which hath died of itself, or been strangled in water, or by any carelessness of man; chiefly, because, in things not against the faith, we deem ancient customs, and the traditions of ancestors, to be Apostolic rules. For as to the rest, which die either by hawking, or by dogs or snares, [smaller animals, according to S. Augustine's distinction,] we follow the Apostle's precept, 1 Cor. x. (cont. Græc. Calumn. Bibl. P. t. xviii. p. 403.) In A. D. 1124, Otto, with the sanction of Callistus II. among other rules delivered to the newly converted Pomeranians, ordains "that they should not eat any thing unclean, or which died of itself, or was strangled, or sacrificed to idols, or the blood of animals," (Urspergensis Abbas ap. Baron. A. E. t. xii. p. 156. who adds, more after the Greek, than the Roman, practice.") The imposition of penance is mentioned in Greg. 3. Can. pœnit. c. 30. Bede de Remed. Pecc. 4. (ap. Bev. Vindic. Can. Ap. 63. p. 342. ed Cotel.) the Capitula Theodori, xv-xix. and others there quoted, Pœnitentiale Theodori, t. i. p. 26. Richard Wormaciensis, Ep. Decret. 1. 19. cap. 85. &c. (ap. Elmenhorst. ad Minut. F. 1. c.) and the Concil. Wormac. c. 64, 65. (though not accounted genuine). Beveridge sums up the account," so that what is sanctioned by this Canon, the Western Church also very long observed, the Eastern ever,” (Cod. Can. Vind. ii. 6.) see further his notes on the Ap. Can.; Curcellæus, 1. c. Leo Allat. 1. c. Natalis Alex. H. E. t. i. Diss. xi. Suicer, v. aipa Elmenhorst 1. c. The application of this Apostolic injunction, which S. Augustine mentions, to designate the three heaviest sins, murder, adultery, and idolatry, does not exclude the literal sense, as appears from a trace of it in Tertullian himself. (de Pudicit. c. 32.) It occurs also in S. Cyprian Testim. iii. 119. Pacian. Paræn. ad Pœnit. init; perhaps in Theophilus Ant. quoted by Mill, ad loc, and in some ap. Pseudo-Eucherium ad loc. Note B, p. 37. The same distinct statement of the entire absence of images among the early Christians, and that, as a reproach made against them by the heathen, occurs in Origen, (c. Cels. viii. 17.)" after this, Celsus says that we abstain from setting up altars, images, temples." Cæcilius ap. Minuc. F. p. 91. "Why have they no altars, no temples, no known images?" Arnobius, l. vi. "Ye are wont to charge us, as with the greatest impiety, that we neither erect sacred buildings for the offices of worship, or set up the images or likeness of any of the gods, or make altars, &c." Lact. de Mortib. Persec. 12. "an image of God is sought for," (as it is implied, APOL. 110 Principles of early Christians on image-worship. NOTES in vain; for had any image been found, the heathen would have thought ON it to be of God.) The assertions in Tertullian, Origen, and Minucius especially, are too distinct to be evaded; they attest a state of the Church very different from that of modern Rome; so could not men have spoken, had the use of images been such as the Deutero-Nicene Council would have it. The modern Romanist excuse (e. g. Feuardent, ad Iren. Pamel. ad loc.) that the ancient Christians were denying that they employed latria, though they did shew reverence, or that they had images of the dead, inasmuch as the saints were alive, certainly cannot in any way be made to fit to the passages which speak of their having no statues. Over and above these positive statements of facts, the Benedictine editor of Origen thus sums up the principles of the early Christians. 1. "They held that no image of God was to be made." Clem. Al. Strom. vi. [vii. 5.] Orig. c. Cels. 1. c. Minuc. F. P. 313. "Why should I form an image to God, when, if thou thinkest rightly, man himself is the image of God?" Lactantius ii. 2., who also argues like Tertullian, "what avail, lastly, images, which are the monuments either of the dead or the absent? images are superfluous, they [the Gods] being every where present; because they are the images of the dead: they are like the dead; for they are devoid of all sensation." This was continued, as to The Father, Conc. Nic. ii. Actt. 4. 5. 6. and Greg. 2 Ep. ad Leon. Isaur. ap. Petav. 15. 14. 1. add Aug. de Fid. et Symb. c. 7. 2. The second commandment extends to Christians. Clem. Al. Strom, vi. [v. 5.] Orig. c. Cels. iv. [v. 6.] vi. [14. vii. 64.] Tert. de Spect. 23. de Idol. 3, 4. [add Cypr. Test. iii. 59.] S. Augustine says, that all the decalogue is binding except as to the sabbath, c. Faust. xv. 4. 7. xix. 18. c. 2 Epp. Pelag. iii. 4.] 3. Painting and sculpture are forbidden to Christians as to Jews. Clem. Al. Protr. [§. 4. p. 18. ed. Sylb.] Orig. c. Cels. iv. [31.] Tertull. de Idol. 1. c. c. Hermog. [init.] 4. They blamed the Encratites for having images of Christ, which they venerated after the manner of the Gentiles. Iren. 1. 25. 6. and from him Epiph. Hær. 27. c. 6. Romanists answer, (e. g. Bellarm. de Eccl. Triumph. 1. ii. c. 16. t. i. p. 2143,) that what S. Irenæus is here blaming, is the using heathenish rites, towards these images and those of the philosophers which they set up with them, as sacrificing, burning incense: (which S. Augustine adds, de Hær. c. 7. "worshipping and burning incense,”) S. Irenæus, however, says nothing of this, but only, “And they crown them, and set them up with the images of the philosophers of the world, and shew other signs of reverence to them, in like way as the Gentiles," and S. Epiphanius expressly singles out for censure, the outward act of reverence, "with whom (the philosophers) they place other images of Jesus, and having set them up, they fall down before them (worship, gorxvvour) and in other ways do after the customs of the heathen." Epiph. (if it be not a gloss) adds "sacrifices" to the account of Irenæus, but it seems, on a conjecture only; "what are customs of the heathen, but sacrifices and the rest?" To this statement, however, he subjoins that there was some allowed use of images in the three first centuries, alleging Euseb. vii. 18. Philost. |