measures. Although the evil produced by the religion of the impious Manès was so great, that Archelaüs, Bishop of Caschara, in Mesopotamia, judged it necessary to imprison him, yet he renounced that design when Marcellus (to whom Manès had written) proposed another conference with him. Archelaüs succeeded in converting the heretic, and not only gave up his intention of detaining him, but saved his life when the people would have stoned him to death.

It is possible that the church was in a certain degree compelled to act in this manner, from the impossibility of employing the coercive measures of temporal power against heretics during the reigns of the heathen princes; but this was not the only motive for her tolerance, since it is certain that when no edicts of persecution existed against the Christians, the emperors received the appeals of the bishops in the same manner as those of their other subjects: this is proved by the history of the heretic Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch.

The council of that town, assembled in 272, perceiving that Paul had relapsed into heresy, after the abjuration which he had made before the council of 266, deposed him, and elected Domnus in his place. The episcopal house being still occupied by the deposed bishop, he was ordered to quit it, that his successor might take possession. Paul having refused to obey, the bishops applied to the Emperor Aurelian, who had not then begun to persecute the Christians: he received their complaint, and replied, that as he did not know which of the two parties was right, they must conform to the decision of the Bishop of Rome and his church. The holy see was then occupied by Felix I., who confirmed the decision of the council, and the Emperor Aurelian caused it to be executed.

As toleration was universal in the Christian church, it is not to be supposed that the church of Spain followed different principles. Basilides and Marcial, Bishops of Astorga and Merida, apostatized; they were reconciled to the church without any punishment but degradation, to which they submitted before the year 253, when they appealed to Pope Stephen.

The Council of Elvira in 303 decreed, that if an heretic demanded to be re-admitted into the bosom of the church, he should be reconciled, without suffering any punishment but a canonical penance of ten years, which was the more remarkable, as this council established more severe punishments for many crimes which appear less heinous. This seems to prove that the Spanish bishops who composed this council, among whom were the great Osius of Cordova, Sabinus of Seville, Valerius of Saragossa, and Melantius of Toledo, were persuaded, like Origen, that leniency was the means to convert heretics, in order to prevent them from falling into obstinacy and impenitence.

SECOND EPOCH.—From the Fourth to the Eighth Century.

If the primitive system of the church towards heretics had been faithfully pursued, as it ought to have been, after the peace of Constantine, the tribunal of the Inquisition would never have existed, and, perhaps, the number and duration of heresies would have been less; but the popes and bishops of the fourth century, profiting by the circumstance of the emperors having embraced Christianity, began to imitate, in a certain degree, the conduct which they had reprehended in the heathen priests.

These pontiffs, though respectable for the holiness of their lives, sometimes carried their zeal for the triumph of the Catholic faith, and the extirpation of heresy, to too great a height; and to ensure success, engaged Constantine and his successors to establish civil laws against all heretics.

This first step, which the popes and bishops had taken contrary to the doctrine of St. Paul, was the principle and origin of the Inquisition; for when the custom of punishing a heretic by corporeal pain, although he was a good subject, was once established, it became necessary to vary the punishments, to augment their number, to render them more or less severe, according to the character of each sovereign, and to regulate the manner of prosecuting the culprit.

The Emperor Theodosius published, in 382, an edict against the Manicheans, decreeing that they should be punished with death, and their property confiscated for the use of the state, and commissioning the prefect (Préfet du Prétoire) to appoint inquisitors and spies to discover those who should conceal themselves.

It is here that inquisition and accusation are first mentioned in relation to heresy, for until that time only those great crimes which attacked the safety of the empire were permitted to be publicly denounced. The successors of Theodosius modified these edicts, some of which menaced heretics with the prosecutions of the impartial judges, if they did not voluntarily abjure their errors. Notices were given to known heretics who did not abjure after the publication of the edicts, that if they were converted in a certain time, they would be admitted to a reconciliation, and would only suffer a canonical penance.

When these conciliatory measures were unavailing, various punishments were adopted. Those doctors who, in contempt of the laws, promulgated their false opinions, were subjected to considerable fines, banishment from cities, and even transportation. In certain cases, their property was confiscated; in others they were obliged to pay a fine of ten pounds of gold, or they were scourged with leathern thongs, and sent to islands from whence they could not escape. Besides these punishments, they were forbidden to hold assemblies, and the offenders were liable to proscription, banishment, transportation, and even death in some cases. The execution of these decrees was intrusted to the governors of provinces, magistrates charged with the administration of justice, commanders of towns and their principal officers, who were all liable to various punishments in case of negligence.

The establishment of most of these laws had been solicited by popes and bishops of known sanctity, and it must be allowed that it was not their intention to carry those which decreed the punishment of death into execution; they only desired to intimidate innovators by their publication.

The church of Spain continued faithful to the general discipline, under the authority of the Roman emperors; the Arian heresy was afterwards established among them under the Goths; but since their princes have embraced the Catholic faith, the laws and councils of Spain inform us of their treatment of heretics.

The fourth Council of Toledo, assembled in 633, at which St. Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, assisted, was occupied with the Judaic heresy: it was decreed, with the consent of King Sisinand, that they should be at the disposal of the bishops, to be punished, and compelled by fear to return to Christianity a second time: they were to be deprived of their children, and their slaves set at liberty.

In 655, the ninth Council of Toledo decreed, that baptized Jews should be obliged to celebrate the Christian festivals with their bishops, and that those who should refuse to conform to this discipline should be condemned either to the punishment of scourging, or abstinence, according to the age of the offender.

We find that greater severity was shown towards those who returned from Christianity to idolatry. King Récarede I. proposed to the third Council of Toledo, in 589, that the priests and civil judges should be commissioned to extirpate that species of heresy, by punishing the culprits in a degree proportioned to the crime, yet without employing capital punishment.

These rigorous measures did not appear sufficient, and the twelfth Council of Toledo, in 681, at which King Erbigius assisted, decided that, if the offender was noble, he should be subject to excommunication and exile; if he was a slave, he should be scourged and delivered to his master loaded