Volume 1

A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood.

Date:: [between 1890 and 1899?]

Credit: A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood. Source: Wellcome Collection.

37/1096 (page 17)

$(3) July 26 (Jf. Hieron.'). i (4) August 8 {Cal. Armen.'). [C.] ( I ADULTERY.—We shajl attempt to give a ^ general account of laws and customs relating to 1 this topic, dwelling more fully upon such as i elucidate the spirit of their several periods, and upon the principles involved in disputable points. ( Our outline breaks naturally into the thi*ee fol- i lowing divivions :— ^ 1. Antecedents of Christian jurisprudence in i Church and State on adultery. s 2. Nature and classification of the crime. 1 3. Penalties imposed upon it. i Our quotations from Eastern canonists when i compared with civilians are made from the older 1 Latin versions ; on occasion the Greek phrases : are added. In imperial laws the Latin is com- i monly the most authentic. These are numbered, ( first the Book of Codex, next Title, then Law; 1 but in the Digest, where it is usual to subdivide, ! the Title is distinguished by a Roman numeral. 1. Antecedents of Christian Jurisprudence in i Church and State on Adultery.—Respecting the ( germs of future differences as regards this and i connected subjects traceable in the Apostolic ■ times, Neander has some useful observations i {Planting of the Christian Church, Bohn’s ed. I. ! 246-9 and 257, 261). Many circumstances, how- ever, kept down these tendencies to opposition. ^ In an age of newly awakened faith, and under the pressure of persecution, living motive took the place of outward law. The revulsion from heathen sins was strong, and filled the sottls of converts with abhorrence, while the tender sym- pathy of their teachers urged men to control themselves, succour the tempted, and pity the fallen. “I am overwhelmed with sadness,” writes Polycarp to the Philippians (cap. xi.), “ on account of Valens who was made presbyter amongst you, because he thus knows not the place which was given him.” This man had fallen into adultery (see Jacobson in loco). “I grieve exceedingly both for him and for his wife, to whom may the Lord grant true repent- ance. Be ye therefore also sober-minded in this matter, and count not such persons as your ene- mies ; but as suffering and wayward members call them back, that you may save the one Body of you all. For so doing ye shall establish your own selves.” Clement of Rome, unlike Polycarp, had no special example to deal with; his warnings are therefore general. In Ep. i. 30 and cap. 6 of the 2nd Ep., attributed to him, adultery is stig- matized among the foulest and most heinous sins. His exhortations and promises of forgive- ness (i. 7, 8, 9, 50) are likewise general, but their tenour leaves no doubt that he intended to ir.vite all such sinners to repentance. The same declarations of remission to all penitents and the loosing of every bond by the grace of Christ, occur in Ignat, Ep. ad Philadelph. 8 ; and are found in the shorter as well as the longer recen- sion (see Curetou, Corp. Ignat, p. 97). In these addresses we seem to catch the lingering tones of the Apostolic age ; and all of like meaning and early date .should be noted as valuable testi- monies. De I’Aubespine (Bingham, xvi. 11, 2) asserted that adulterers were never taken back into communion before the time of Cyprian, and, though Bishop Pearson refutes this opinion, he CHRIST. ANT. allows that respecting them, together with mur- derers and idolaters, there was much dispute m the early Church. Beveridge also {Cod. Can. vii. 2) believes that its severity was so great as to grant no such sinners reconciliation except upon the very hardest terms. Of this severe treatment, as well as the differ- ence of opinion alluded to by Pearson, we see various traces; yet the prevailing inclination was to hold out before the eyes of men a hope mingled with fear. Hermas {Pastor Mandat. 4, 1 and 3) concedes one, and but one, repentance to those who are unchaste after baptism ; for which mildness and a reluctant allowance of second nuptials, Tertullian {De Pudicit. 10) styles this book an Adulterers’ Friend. Dionysius of Co- rinth, writing to the churches of Pontus on marriage and continency, counsels the reception of all who repent their transgressions, whatever their nature may be (Eu.seb. iv. 23). Thus also Zephyrinus of Rome announced, according to Tertullian, “ ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta, poenitentia functis dimitto ;” and though quoted in a spirit of hostility and satire, this sentence, which forms a chief rea.son for the treatise {De Pudicit.), probably contains in sub- stance an authentic penitential rule. Of Tertul- lian’s own opinion, since he was at this time a Montanist, it is needless to say more than that, differing from his former views, not far removed from those maintained by Hermas (cf. De Peni- tent. 7-10), he now held adultery to be one of those sins not 6nly excluding for ever from the company of believers,' but also (cap, 19) abso- lutely without hope through our Lord’s inter- cession. Exclusion from the faithful was, how- ever, insisted upon in such cases by some Catholic bishops. Cyprian {ad Antonian.f while himself on the side of mercy, tells us how cer- tain bishops of his province had, in the time of his predecessors, shut the door of the Church against adulterers, and denied them penitence altogether. Others acted on the opposite system ; yet we are assured that peace remained un- broken— a surprising circumstance, certainly, considering the wealth and intelligence of that province, and the importance of such decisions to a luxurious population. Cyprian hints at no lay difficulties, and simply says that every bishop is the disposer and director of his own act, and must render an account to God (cf. also Cypr. De Unitate, several Epistles, and Cone. Carthag. Proloquium). Hence the determination of one bishop had no necessary force in the diocese of another. So, too, the acts of a local council took effect only within its own locality, unless they were accepted elsewhere. But the correspondence of bishops and churches set bounds to the difficulties which might otherwise have arisen, and prepared the way for General Councils—see, for instance, the fragment (Euseb. V. 25) of the early Synod at Caesarea in Pales- tine—its object being the diffusion of the Syno- dical Epistle. United action was also much furthered by the kind of compilation called Codex Canonum, but the first of these (now lost) was formed towards the end of the 4th century. See Dion. Exig. ap. Justell. I. 101, and Bevereg., Pand. Can. Proleg. vii. The passages already cited show the strength of Christian recoil from heathen sensuality. In his instructive reply to Celsus (iii. 51) Origen com-$