duction of foreign rites. The regulation of the calendar was in his hands; and it was in his capacity as high priest that Julius Cæsar reformed that which had been in use before his time. The book of the Fasti1 was intrusted to his keeping exclusively; a circumstance that enabled him to adjourn or accelerate the decision on the most important affairs, and frequently to thwart the designs of the chief magistrates of the republic. So extensive, in a word, were his power and privileges, that the Emperor Augustus and his successors, in accordance with their system of concentrating in their own person all the authority of the chief magistrates of the republic, deemed it necessary to add the title of sovereign pontiff to the many others annexed to the imperial dignity and it is remarkable, too, that in the announcement of their titles, that of "Sovereign Pontiff," was placed first, even before that of "Dictator." 3

14. Title of Sovereign Pontiff given to the first Christian Emperors. In consequence of this ancient usage, we find on many ancient monuments, the title of sovereign pontiff given to the first Christian emperors, until the time of Gratian, who formally refused to accept it. Eminent critics, it is true, have doubted

A sort of calendar, which prescribed the days on which it was lawful to plead.

2 Censorinus, an author of the third century, attributes the defects of the calendar, before the time of Julius Cæsar, principally to the power which the priests formerly had of regulating it, and to the abuse which they frequently made of that power for their own private interests: "Quod delictum (defectum scilicet calendarii) ut corrigeretur," says he, "pontificibus datum est negotium, eorumque arbitrio intercalandi ratio permissa. Sed horum plerique, ob odium vel gratiam, quò quis magistratu citius abiret, diutiùsve fungeretur, aut publici redemptor ex anni magnitudine in lucro damnove esset, plùs minùsve ex libidine intercalando, rem sibi ad corrigendum mandatam, ultrò depravarunt; adeoque aberratum est, ut C. Cæsar, pontifex maximus,...quò retrò delictum corrigeret, duos menses intercalarios interponeret," &c.-Censorinus, De Die Natali, cap. xx.; Hamburgi, 1614, in 4to. p. 106.

3 Gutherius, ubi supra, lib. i. cap. xi. Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. i. p. 17. See also in the collection of Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, many memoirs by M. de la Bastie, Sur le Souverain Pontificat des Empereurs Romains (vols. xviii. and xxii. of the edition in 12mo.). These Memoirs are analysed by Eckhel, Doctrina Nummorum Veterum, tom. viii. p. 380, &c.

Quatrième Mémoire de M. de la Bastie, sur le Souverain Pontificat des Empereurs Romains. Annales de Baronius, anno 312, not. 93, &c. Bosius,

whether the Christian emperors ever did, or could, accept such a title it is certain, nevertheless, that the pagans continued to give it; and it is highly improbable that they would have so long persisted in giving a title which the Christian emperors neither accepted nor wished to accept, and which gave them so many opportunities of destroying paganism under pretence of reforming its abuses. It is much more natural to admit, with Cardinal Baronius and others, that reasons of state, and even the good of religion, concurred in removing every scruple on the matter. On the one hand, the title of sovereign pontiff invested them, in the temporal order, with a power which it was their interest to possess; on the other hand, their public profession of the Christian religion prevented any person from believing that by assuming that title, they wished in any way to favour or support idolatry. Abstaining from every function of the pontificate contrary to Christianity, they believed themselves justified in conscience in retaining a title which they detested in their hearts, and which they had resolved to reject as soon as the interests of government allowed.” 2

15. Privileges of the Pagan Priests maintained under Constantine and his

successors.

But whether the title of high-priest was assumed by the first Christian emperors or not, the pagan priests certainly continued to enjoy their ancient privileges long after the conversion of

De Pontificatu Max. Imper. Roman. (Grævius, Thesaur. Antiquit. Rom. vol. v. p. 271, &c.)

Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, vol. iv. pp. 139, 635; vol. v. pp. 138, 705. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. iv. book xvii. note 24. Pagi, Critica in Annales Baronii, anno 312.

M. Labletterie, Vie de l'Empereur Julien, book iii. p. 232; idem, Vie de l'Empereur Jovien, p. 106. M. Beugnot, in his Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme en Occident, looks upon it as an incontestable fact, not only that the title of Summus Pontifex had been given to Constantine, but that he even discharged some of its functions contrary to the spirit and to the principles of Christianity, vol. i. pp. 89, 92. This assertion of M. Beugnot is, however, very far from being established by decisive proofs. The Quatrième Mémoire of M. de la Bastie may serve as a corrective on this point to M, Beugnot's work.

Constantine. Their exemption from curial offices was specially confirmed under the reign of that prince by two distinct laws promulgated in 335 and 337; the latter of these laws, however, restricts to perpetual flamens the immunity which all flamens, without exception, had formerly enjoyed. Not content with confirming their ancient privileges, Valentinian I. granted new honours to such of them as had discharged their functions with credit; he raised them to the dignity of counts, a distinction conferred only on citizens eminent for the zeal and probity of which they had given proofs in the administration of public affairs. Its privileges were very extensive. The pagan priests continued to enjoy these immunities even until the reign of Gratian and Theodosius, who gave the death blow to paganism in the empire; the former, by depriving the temples of their property; the latter, by totally prohibiting idolatry, or, at least, by executing with more rigour the laws enacted against it by the first Christian emperors.

16. Prohibition of Foreign Religions by the ancient Romans. Another very remarkable effect of the veneration in which the religion of the state was held by the ancient Romans, was the

Beugnot, Histoire de la Destruction du Pagan. en Occident, vol. i. pp. 33, 234, &c. 329, &c. 353, &c.

We have cited above, p. 16, the first of these laws. The second runs thus: "Sacerdotes et flamines perpetuos, atque etiam duumvirales, ab annonarum præposituris inferioribusque muneribus immunes esse præcipimus. Quod ut perpetuâ observatione firmetur, legem incisam æneis tabulis jussimus publicari."-Cod. Theod. lib. xii. tit. v. not. 2.

3 "Qui ad sacerdotium provinciæ et principalis (seu primatis) honorem gradatim et per ordinem, muneribus expeditis (non gratiâ emendicatis suffragiis) et labore pervenerint, probatis actibus, si consona est civium fama, et publicè ab universo ordine comprobantur, habeantur immunes, otio fruituri quod continui laboris testimonio promerentur;...honorem etiam eis ex comitibus addi censemus, quem hi consequi solent qui fidem diligentiamque suam in administrandis rebus publicis adprobarint."-Cod. Theod. ibid. tit. i. not. 75. Lebeau, Hist. du Bas Emp. vol. iv. book xvi. note 19. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. iv. book xvi. note 29. This law of Valentinian I., and some other acts of his government, have made him to be suspected of indifference for the Christian religion. Tillemont thinks his conduct can be partly justified; nevertheless, he admits "that this prince has not always, either from true prudence or from false policy, manifested all that zeal which might be expected from a confessor of that faith which he had firmly professed under Julian."-Hist. des Emp. vol. v. pp. 10, 11.

general prohibition of all foreign religions not authorised by law.1 Livy's words on this subject deserve especial attention: "Our wisest men, those who were eminently versed in laws human and divine, believed that nothing could be more destructive to religion than sacrificing, not according to the national, but a foreign rite." 2 The same historian cites a great number of decrees made by the senate on this subject at different times; many of which were not simply prohibitive, but inflicted also penalties more or less severe on persons transgressing the law.3 It was by virtue of those decrees that the Prætor Cornelius Hispalus banished from Rome (A.U.c. 613) those who endeavoured to introduce the worship of Jupiter Sabasius; and that the senate ordered the demolition of the temples of Isis and Serapis at Rome (A.U. 701), because their worship was not acknowledged by the laws.5

17. This Prohibition in force under the Empire.

This ancient legislation continued in force under the empire. Augustus, by the advice of Mæcenas, revived it, when an attempt was made to introduce the Egyptian paganism into Italy. The following is the discourse of Maecenas to Augustus on the subject, as reported by Dion Cassius : "Honour the gods according to the customs of our fathers; and compel others to honour them. Detest all those who make innovations in matters of religion, and punish them, not only for the sake of the gods (for he who despises them respects nothing), but also because they who introduce new gods lead many persons to obey foreign laws; and hence arise societies bound together by oaths, leagues,

'See Mémoire before cited, of Burigny, Sur le Respect des Anciens Romains pour la Religion. Guénée, Lettres de quelques Juifs, vol. i. part ii. Letter 3, § 3. 2 "Judicabant enim prudentissimi viri omnis divini humanique juris, nihil æquè dissolvendæ religioni esse quàm ubi non patrio sed externo ritu sacrificaretur."-Tit. Liv. Hist. lib. xxxix. not. 16.

Many of those decrees are cited by Burigny and Guénée, ubi supra.

Valer. Maxim. lib. i. cap. iii. § 2. Crevier, Hist. Rom. book xxvii. an de R. 613, vol. viii. in 12mo. p. 516.

• Dion Cassius, Hist. Roman. lib. xl. not. 47, Hamburg edition, 1750, vol. i. p. 257.

associations, and all other things dangerous to a monarchical government. Do not tolerate either atheists or magicians." 1 The example of Augustus, in this respect, was followed by Tiberius, who proscribed not only the Egyptian ceremonies, but also the Jewish, and ordered all the Jews who would not change their religion within a certain time, to depart from Italy, under pain of perpetual slavery. Four thousand freed men were on this occasion banished to Sardinia, according to Tacitus.

2

18. It was a Pretext for the Pagans for persecuting the Christians. This aversion of the Romans, and of all ancient nations, for foreign religions, was one of the chief causes of the opposition. which Christianity encountered from the beginning in all parts of the empire, and of those cruel persecutions inflicted on it during three centuries by the emperors. The most celebrated apologists of the Church have remarked it ; and the judges themselves not unfrequently assigned, as the grounds of their sentences against the Christians, their obstinacy in rejecting the gods of the empire, and introducing a new god.

3

19. Injustice of this Pretext.

It can hardly be necessary to observe that such a motive could not justify, even in the opinion of fair-minded pagans themselves, the edicts of persecution published against the Christians. For was it not evidently unjust to reject without inquiry, solely because it was new, a religion founded on miracles evidently divine, and whose pure morality naturally commanded the respect even of its greatest enemies, when they were every day changing

1 Ibid. lib. lii. not. 36, p. 689.

2 Tacitus, Annal. lib. ii. cap. lxxxv. Dion, Hist. Rom. lib. liv. not. 6, p. 735; lib. lx. not. 6, p. 945. Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, vol. i. p. 73.

Naudet, Des Changements opérés dans toutes les Parties de l'Administration de l'Empire Romain sous les Règnes de Dioclétien, Constantin, &c., part ii. § 12. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. ii. book viii, note 25.

"Sed quoniam, cum ad omnia occurrit veritas nostra, postremò legum obstruitur auctoritas adversùs eam ;...de legibus prius consistam vobiscum, ut cum tutoribus legum."-Tertull. Apolog. § 4. Also Lactantius, Instit. lib. ii. cap. vii. (Biblioth. PP. tom. iii.) Bossuet, Explic. de l'Apocal. ch. iii note 4 (Bossuet's Works, vol. iii. p. 185, &c.).