2. The year is either the year of the moon, or the year of the sun; there is not above eleven days' difference. Our moveable feasts are according to the year of the moon; else they should be fixed. 3. Though they reckon ten days sooner beyond sea, yet it does not follow their spring is sooner than ours; we keep the same time in natural things, and their ten days sooner, and our ten days later in those things, mean the self-same time; just as twelve sous in French, are ten10 pence in English. 20 4. The lengthening of days is not suddenly perceived, till they are grown a pretty deal longer; because the sun, though it be in a circle, yet it seems for a while to go in a right line. For take a segment of a great circle especially, and you shall doubt whether it be straight1 or no. But when the sun is got past that line, then you presently perceive the days lengthened. Thus it is in the winter and summer solstice; which is indeed the true reason of them. 5. The eclipse of the sun is, when it is new moon; the eclipse of the moon, when it is full. They say Dionysius 1 Be straight, H. 2] be not straight, H. and S. several churches, and by accurate inquiry, may be discovered.' Works, iii. 1450. The remark in the Table Talk shows that this forced retractation was not seriously made. 1. II. The lengthening of days &c.] The sense of this passage is not clear. Selden's meaning perhaps is that in winter so small a part of the sun's orbit is visible above the horizon, that the sun appears to the eye to be travelling in a right line. In the much larger summer orbit, the curvature is distinctly seen. But that the lengthening of the days is on this account suddenly perceived, does not seem to follow. It is likely enough that the passage has been incorrectly reported. 1. 21. They say Dionysius &c.] The story is found in a letter written as from Dionysius the Areopagite to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. It says that he and the Sophist Apollophanes were together at Heliopolis at the time of the Crucifixion, and that they then was converted by the eclipse that happened at our Saviour's death, because it was neither of these, and so could not be natural. CLIV. ZEALOTS. ONE would wonder Christ should whip the buyers and sellers out of the temple, and nobody offer to resist him, considering what opinion they had of him; but the reason was, they had a law, that whosoever did profane sanctitatem Dei, aut templi, the holiness of God, or the temple, before ten persons, it was lawful for any of them to kill him, or 10 to do any thing on this side killing him, as whipping him, or the like. And hence it was, that when one struck our Saviour before a judge, (where it was not lawful to strike, and there observed the moon pass in an unaccountable way over the face of the sun, and so remain from the sixth hour until the evening. Apollophanes, he remarks, must know that such an event as this, happening out of the ordinary course of nature, must have been due to direct divine interposition. Indeed, Apollophanes himself had admitted this, for at the time of the eclipse he said to Dionysius that what they saw must be the consequence of matters which concerned the Gods (eiwv åμοißaì ñрayμáтwv). The actual conversion of Dionysius is ascribed to the preaching of St. Paul at Athens, Acts xvii. 34. The unseasonable eclipse is referred to by Dionysius in his letter as supplying an argument which Polycarp is to press on the scoffing sophist Apollophanes. The result is said to have been that Apollophanes too became a Christian. See S. Dionysii Epistola 7, in vol. iii. of Migne's Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, and Epistola II, extant only in Latin and marked by Migne as spurious-as indeed the rest of the writings ascribed to Dionysius commonly are. 1. 7. the reason was, they had a law &c.] Naturali, refers at length to this law, and to Zealots. He gives, among instances of its being put in force, the well-known case of Phineas, and the case of Mattathias who, inflamed with zeal, slew a Jew who was about, in the sight of all, to offer sacrifice on a pagan altar (1 Maccabees, ch. ii. 23-26). The stoning of Stephen, and the oath taken against Paul's life, are other instances in point. See Works, i. 456 ff. Selden, in his De Jure its enforcement by the as it is not with us at this day), he only replied, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? He says nothing against their smiting him, in case he had been guilty of speaking evil, that is, blasphemy, and they could have proved it against him. They that put this law in execution were called zealots; but afterwards they committed many villanies. 1. 7. afterwards they committed many villanies] See Josephus, Wars of the Jews, bk. iv. chs. 4, 5, 6, 7, for an account of the wholesale murders and robberies which they committed during the great war with the Romans. APPENDIX EXCURSUS A. EXCOMMUNICATION : p. 66. Note on sec. 4. The evidence for this is found in a rescript, &c. CONSTANTINE in this rescript states it as law, that in every cause the judgment pronounced by bishops is to hold good absolutely and without appeal, that either of two disputants may carry the case to the bishop's court, whether his opponent wishes it or not; and further, that the evidence of any one bishop is to be accepted as final, and that when a bishop has given his testimony, no other witness is to be heard. That there is fraud or error attaching to this rescript seems certain, for it is found inserted in the later Codex Theodosianus, which contains laws wholly inconsistent with it. These show that if it was written by Constantine-and this is a disputed point-the law which it recites must have been abrogated some fifty years before the Codex Theodosianus was compiled. Sirmondi, however, includes it in his Appendix Codicis Theodosiani. Selden, here and in his treatise De Synedriis Veterum Ebraeorum (Works, i. 956), accepts it as Constantine's, but he insists that it was fraudulently inserted in the Codex Theodosianus, of which it could not possibly have formed part. See Works, ii. 830 and 1067. Godefroy, in his edition of the Codex, prints it under the heading, Extravagans seu subdititius titulus de Episcopali Judicio, and he gives reasons (endorsed by Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xx. sec. 4, note) for rejecting it as an entire forgery, vol. vi. 303-308 (ed. 1665 fol.). Haenel does not include it in his edition of the Codex, but he prints it at the end of his volume as forming part of Sirmondi's Appendix, and he prefaces the Appendix with a discussion of his own, concluding in favour of the rescript as the genuine work of Constantine, but rejecting it from the Theodosian Code. He adds also a list of the various authorities who may be consulted on the above points. The rescript runs thus: 'Sanximus namque, sicut edicti nostri forma declarat, sententias episcoporum, quolibet genere latas,... inviolatas semper incorruptasque servari, scilicet ut pro sanctis semper ac venerabilibus habeatur quicquid episcoporum fuerit sententiâ terminatum. . . . Quicunque itaque litem habens, sive possessor sive petitor erit, . . . judicium eligit sacrosanctae legis antistitis, illico sine aliquâ dubitatione, etiamsi alia pars refragatur, ad episcopum cum sermone litigantium dirigatur. ... Omnes itaque causae, quae vel praetorio jure vel civili tractantur, episcoporum sententiis terminatae, perpetuo stabilitatis jure firmentur, nec liceat ulterius retractari negotium, quod episcoporum sententia deciderit. Testimonium etiam, ab uno licet episcopo perhibitum, omnes judices indubitanter accipiant, nec alius audiatur cum testimonium episcopi a qualibet parte fuerit repromissum.' Constitutiones Sirmondi, Appendix, cap. 1. On the other hand, conf. e. g. a law of Arcadius and Honorius, which was certainly part of the Codex: 'Quoties de religione agitur, episcopos convenit agitare; ceteras vero causas, quae ad ordinarios cognitores, vel ad usum publici juris pertinent, legibus oportet audiri.' Codex, lib. xvi, tit. xi. sec. I. The Novels of Valentinian III, of later date than the Codex, are not less conclusive. 'Constat episcopos forum legibus non habere, nec de aliis causis (secundum Arcadii et Honorii divalia constituta) praeter religionem posse judicare.' Tit. xxxiv. EXCURSUS B. INCENDIARIES: p. 83. 1. 9. They that first set it on fire &c.] The King's chief advisers in the matters which brought about the conflict with the Parliamentary party were, or were assumed to have been, the Duke of Buckingham, the High Treasurer, Sir Richard Weston, the Earl of Strafford, and Archbishop Laud. It is |