as well as the Christians: for the soldiers inviolably observed their general's commands, and when they had barbarously plundered and murdered in all other places, they did not pretend to meddle with churches, or offer the least violence to any who betook themselves thither for safety and protection. Nay, they carried some into churches themselves, whom they intended to spare, and so secured them from the violence of others that might have assaulted them." So great a veneration had even the barbarous Arian Goths for churches, in the midst of all their anger and fury against the Romans, as not only St. Austin, but Orosius,' and St. Jerom, and Cassidore, and Sozomen, with other ancient

writers relate the story. And it can hardly be doubted,

then, but that the Catholics had the same veneration for churches; especially when it is considered also, how both by general custom and law under the Christian Emperors, every church was invested with the privilege of an Asylum, or place of sanctuary and refuge in certain cases; of the original of which, and the ancient laws relating to it, because some abuses have been added in after ages by the canon law, I will give a particular account in the following Chapter.

CHAP. XI.

Of the first Original of Asylums, or Places of Sanctuary and Refuge, with the Laws relating to them, in Christian Churches.

SECT. 1.-The Original of this Privilege to be deduced from the Time of Constantine.

All that is necessary to be known of this privilege, so far as concerns the use of it in the ancient Church, either relates to the original of the custom; or the place itself where sanctuary might be had; or the persons who were entitled

Oros. lib. vii. c. 39.

* Cassiodor. Variar. lib, xii. c. 20.

Hieron. Epist. 16. ad Principiam. * Sozom. lib. ix. cap. 10.

to the benefit; or lastly, the conditions they were to observe in order to obtain and enjoy it. And therefore under these four heads we will briefly consider it.

As to the original of it, there is no dispute made by any author, but that it began to be a privilege of churches from the time of Constantine, though there are no laws about it older than Theodosius, either in the Justinian, or the Theodosian Code. But the law of Theodosius is sufficient evidence itself, that it was the custom or practice of the Church before; for his law was not made to authorize the thing itself, but to regulate some points relating to it, which supposes the thing to be in use before. But whether Constantine made any law to establish it, is very much doubted by learned men. Baronius affirms it upon the credit of the Acts of Pope Sylvester; but those are known to be spurious and forged writings, no older than the ninth or tenth age, by the acknowledgment of Papebrochius and Pagi, who have accurately examined and refuted Baronius's vindication of them. However, Gothofred allows what seems to be the truth of the case, that practice and custom established this privilege by degrees, even from the time of Constantine; for before Theodosius made any law about it, the thing was certainly in use in the Church, as appears from the account which Gregory Nazianzen gives of it in the Life of Basil, where he tells us, how St. Bazil protected a widow, who fled to the altar, against the violence that was offered to her by the

governor of Pontus. The like is reported of St. Ambrose in his Life written by Paulinus; and St. Ambrose himself speaks of the custom in one of his Epistles, where, in answer to the Emperor Valentinian, Junior, who had commanded him to deliver up one of the churches of Milan to the Arians, he tells him, that was a thing he could never obey him in; but if he commanded him to be carried to prison or to death, that he would voluntarily submit to, and neither use force to defend himself, nor fly to the altar to

Baron. an. 324. n. 61.

66

Papebroch. Conatus Chronico-Histor. 3 Naz. Orat. 20. de Paulin. Vit. Ambros. p. 9.

p. 49. Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 315. n. 4. Laud. Basil. tom. i. p. 353.

Ambros. Ep. 33. ad Marcellin. Nec altaria tenebo vitam obsecrans, &c.

supplicate for his life." These and some other such-like instances show, that the churches enjoyed this privilege by ancient custom, before Theodosius made any law about it; which he did first, Anno 392, not to authorize the thing, but to explain and regulate some things relating to it, of which more by and by in their proper place.

SECT. 2.-At first only the Altar and inner Fabric of the Church the Place of Refuge; but afterwards any outer Buildings or Precincts of the Church invested with the same Privilege.

Here we are next to examine what part of the church was more peculiarly assigned to be the place of sanctuary and refuge. Gothofred thinks, that at first only the inner buildings and apartments of the church, and especially the altar, were the places of refuge; whence in Synesius,' and other ancient writers, the altar is so frequently called *Ασυλος Τράπεζα, the table from which no one could be ravished or taken away. But whether this was originally so or not, it is certain that, in the time of Theodosius Junior, these limits for taking sanctuary were enlarged for in one of his laws now extant in both the Codes not only the altar and the body of the church, but all between the church and outward walls, that is, houses and lodgings of the bishop and clergy, gardens, baths, courts, cloisters, are appointed to enjoy the same privilege of being a sanctuary to such as fled for refuge, as well as the innermost part of the temple. Particularly the baptisteries, which as I have showed before, were places without the church, were invested with this privilege equally with the altar. For Proterius, bishop of Alexandria, as Liberatus and Evagrius* report, took sanctuary in the baptistery of the church, to avoid the fury of the Eutychian faction headed by Timotheus Elurus; and though that was a place which even the barbarians themselves had some reverence for, yet as the

1 Synes. Ep. 58. p. 193.

2 Cod. Th. lib. ix. tit. 45. De his qui ad ecclesias confugiunt, leg. 4. Inter templum, quod parietum descripsimus cinctu, et post loca publica, et januas primas ecclesiæ, quicquid fuerit interjacens, sive in cellulis, sive in domibus, hortulis, balneis, areis, atque porticibus, confugas interioris templi vice tueatur, &c. Vid. Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. 12. leg. 3. 8 Liberat. Breviar. c. 15. Evagr. lib. ii. c. 8.

VOL. II.

R

Egyptian bishops' complain in their letter to the Emperor Leo, the malice of the Eutychians pursued him thither, and there slew him, mangled his body, dragged it about the streets, and at last burnt it to ashes, and scattered his ashes in the wind; for which unparalleled barbarity committed against the laws of religion, the Emperor Leo deposed Timotheus Elurus, and sent him into banishment all his life. There were a great many other places, which had this privilege of sanctuary also beside churches, as the statues of the Emperors, of which there is a particular title2 in the Theodosian Code; also the Emperor's standard in the camp, the bishop's house, the graves and sepulchres of the dead, together with the cross, schools, monasteries, and hospitals in after ages; of which, being all foreign to the business of churches, I say nothing further, but refer the curious reader to the elaborate treatise of Rittershusius$ upon this subject, among the London critics, where each of these and some other privileged places are particularly considered.

SECT. 3.-What Persons allowed to take Sanctuary.

Next to the places of refuge, we are to consider the persons to whom this benefit extended, and in what cases they were allowed to take sanctuary in their churches. For this privilege anciently was not intended to patronize wickedness, or shelter men from the due execution of justice, or the force of the laws in ordinary cases; but chiefly to be a refuge for the innocent, the injured, and oppressed. Or in doubtful causes whether criminal or civil, only to give men protection so long, till they might have an equitable and fair hearing of the judges, and not be proceeded against barbarously and rigorously under pretence and colour of justice; or at most, only to give bishops opportunity to intercede for criminals and delinquents in such cases, as it was both becoming and lawful for bishops to turn interThese were the sanctuaries which Basil' pleaded

cessors.

1 Epist. Episcoporum Ægypt. ad calcem Concil. Chalced. n. 22. p. 894. 2 Cod. Th. lib. 9. tit. 44. De his qui ad statuas imperatorum confugiunt. Rittershus. de Asylis. c. 3. 4 Naz. Orat. 20. de Laud. Basil.

3

for against the governor of Pontus, and Synesius' against Andronicus, governor of Ptolemais, and Chrysostom against Eutropius, who had prevailed with Arcadius to abrogate by law all privileges of this nature belonging to the Church; but by God's providence, he was the first man that wanted this privilege, being fallen under the Emperor's displeasure, and forced to fly to the altar for that refuge, which he had denied to others. This gave Chrysostom occasion to make that eloquent and curious oration upon his case, whereby he artfully wrought the people into a tender compassion for their bitterest enemy, that they might go and supplicate the Emperor for him, who now lay prostrate at the altar; and by their supplications they obtained his life, for the sentence of death was mitigated and turned into confiscation and banishment only, though afterward by treachery he lost his life. These were chiefly the cases which the ancient privilege of sanctuary respected, and commonly thirty days protection was granted to men in such pitiable circumstances, which term was thought sufficient by the law to end any controversies that such men might have before the civil judges: though the Saxon law of King Alfred allowed but three days time for this, as both Rittershusius and Gothofred have observed out of Lambard's account of our ancient English and Saxon laws. During this time they were maintained by the Church, if they were poor, out of the revenues of the poor; but if they were able to subsist themselves, it was sufficient for the Church to grant them her protection, and that only in the forementioned cases, and no other.

SECT. 4.-What sort of Persons and Crimes denied this Privilege. First, public Debtors.

Therefore that no one might presume upon indemnity by virtue of this privilege, who had not a just and legal title to it, several crimes and cases were specified by the law, as excepted, for which the Church could grant no protection.

1 Synes. Ep. 58.

confug. leg. 3.

* Vid. Justin. Novel. 17. c. 6.

Cod. Th. lib. 9. tit. 45. De his qui ad eccl.

8 Vid. Cod. Th. lib. ix. tit. 40. de Pœnis, leg. 17.

5

Lambard, de Legibus Angliæ. p. 28.