170 • TRANSACTIOXS OF THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE. [YoL. II. 



Anaclete a bishop of Rome, in the last quarter of the first century saj-s : 

 " He who shall steal anything from his father or mother, and shall say it 

 is not a sin, is guilty of homicide. Our father without doubt is God who 

 created us ; and our mother is the church which has regenerated us in 

 baptism, therefore, he who steals the money of the church and of Christ 

 is a homicide." Stephen, who flourished 253, repeats slightly modifying 

 the phrase, so that the robber is to be looked upon in the same light as a 

 homicide in the eyes of the judge. Eusebius (264-340) the historian says, 

 that bishops cannot transfer any of the revenues of a monastery into the 

 hands of a prince or any other person, that by the apostolical canons he 

 has the care of the ecclesiastical property to dispense it as in the sight of 

 God. He is not to give any of it to his relatives, unless tJiey be poor, ajid 

 then only to distribute among them as to the poor, but not so as to defraud 

 the church. And at the same time Eusebius the bishop (310) declared 

 that he who committed sacrilege should do penance and restore fourfold. 



Till this time the penances and penalties for alienation of church 

 property and sacrilege were purely ecclesiastical. The Christians had no 

 legal position in the state ; they only emerged from a position of con- 

 tempt to one of persecution. But after the edict of toleration, (312) their 

 censures were recognized by the state, and their authority to punish was 

 sanctioned by the secular power. From this time onwards the prohibition 

 to alienate was repeated by the authorities of the church, as well as by 

 the edicts of the emperors, — a full and ample declaration of the law was 

 made by Justinian, and subsequent to his time the same was often 

 declared, the prohibitions were renewed, and the sacredness of church 

 property and revenues fully maintained. 



What I wish to point out however, is, that notwithstanding the anxious 

 care of emperors and rulers of the church to protect the property of the 

 church and that of pious and charitable foundations, and to visit ever}- 

 infringement of them with exemplary punishment, there were recognized 

 exceptions in favour of works of charity and benevolence. No matter 

 how sacred the property was, how inalienable it might be declared to be, 

 it might still be sold for the relief of the poor, for the redemption of 

 captives, and for the support of the various charities for the sick and for 

 strangers. And this notwithstanding the dissensions by which the church 

 was disturbed from the numerous heresies that sprang up at that early 

 time. Orthodox and heretic were alike eager to practise the benevolent 

 commands of the founder of their faith, though ready enough to dispute 

 about the terms of the faith itself That the church was uniformly faith- 

 ful to this duty cannot be affirmed. At the end of the fourth century, 

 St. Ambrose eloquently advocates the claims of the poor in a strain that 



