Conformity of the ecclesiastical discipline of the Reformed churches of France with that of the primitive Christians written by M. La Rocque ... ; render'd into English by Jos. Walker.

CONFORMITY.

Those which accommodate the Cannons, to the times, and which judge of the Discipline of the Antient Christians by that which they follow at present, do think that 'twas never permitted in the Church that those should marry any other Person who were sepa∣rated for Adultery; Nevertheless with the least heed that is taken in reading what remains to us of the Writings of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, it may therein be observ'd, that for several Ages the Liberty of re-mar∣rying was granted to those whose Marriage had been dissolved for Adultery. I should be over-tedious to re∣late all I could alleage for Establishing this Truth; I shall therefore content my self to prove it by some for∣mal and positive Testimonies which shall be above the reach of any contentious Spirits to controul.

To do it with the better method, First of all, 'twill be necessary to transcribe two passages of the Gospel, where our Saviour Jesus Christ has fully explain'd him∣self on this matter, The First is in the Fifth chap. of St. Matth, ver. 31, 32. It hath been also said, Whosoever shall put away his Wife let him give her a Writing of Divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his Wife saving for the cause of Fornication, causeth her to commit Adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth Adultery. These words as every one sees, teach us two things, one, that there's nothing but Adultery which is a lawful cause of brea∣king of Marriage; and the other, that here is to be an intire Separation, both from Bed, and as to Obli∣gation.

The Second is in the 19th chap. of the same Gospel, verse 3, &c. The Pharisees also came unto him, temp∣ting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his Wife for every cause, and he answered and said unto them, Have you not read that he which made them, made them at the beginning Male and Female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mo∣ther and shall cleave to his Wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh; What therefore God has joyned together, let no man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then com∣mand to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away: He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffer'd you to put away your Wifes, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth Adultery: And who∣soever marryeth her which is put away, doth commit Adul∣tery. As the Pharisees in their demand understood a total Separation, it must not also be doubted but Jesus Christ meant it so also in the Answer he made them; In effect, amongst the Jews the term to repudiate compre∣hends an intire rupture, with power to re-marry again; Therefore in the Antient formulary of Divorces amongst the Jews, the Husband spake thus to the Wife which he put away, I send thee going, and repudiate thee, to the end thou mayest be at liberty to marry whom thou wilt.

Let us now see what the Witnesses do depose which I have ingaged to produce for establishing the matter in dispute. I'le begin by Chromatius Bishop of Aquilea, one of the Holiest and most Learned Prelates of his time, that is to say of the Fourth Century, and the be∣ginning of the Fifth. This Learned Writer Interpre∣ting the two verses of the Fifth chap. of St. Matthew

above transcrib'd, speaks in this manner; Let them know how great the crime of condemnation is which those do incur in the sight of God, * 1.1 who being overcome with the unbridled pleasure of Lust, and without cause of Adultery, cast off their Wifes to pass on to another Marriage. It appears by the reasoning of Chromatius, that if they cast them off for Adultery, they were permitted to re-marry, and ha∣ving shewn that though the Laws of Men suffer'd to repudiate ones Wife for other cause than Adultery, those which did it were nevertheless inexcusable, but their sins was so much the greater, that they preferred the Laws of Men before the Law of God; After this I say, he adds, As it is not permitted to cast off a woman that lives chastly and honestly; so also 'tis permitted to re∣pudiate an Adulteress, because such a one renders her self un∣worthy of her Husbands Company, which in sinning against her own Body, had the boldness to defile the Temple of God.

The Deacon Hillary, a Writer of the Fourth Centu∣ry, in his Commentaries on St. Pauls Epistles, in the Third Volume of St. Ambrose his Works. Hillary Ex∣pounding these words of the 11th verse of the 7th chap. of the ••. Ep. to the Cor. * 1.2 Neither let the Woman forsake her Husband, he thus explains himself, it must be under∣stood, except it be for the cause of Adultery, because it is permitted for the Husband to marry, after having repudia∣ted his Wife for cause of Adultery.

St. Epiphanius is full in the case, seeing he expresses himself in this manner; Him who could not be con∣tent with one Wife, whether she dyed, or that he put her away for Adultery, Fornication, or some other Crime, if he joyn himself to another Wife, or if a Wo∣man for the same cause takes a second Husband, the Word of God condemns them not, neither deprives them

of the Communion of the Church nor of Eternal Life; but it bears with them for infirmity sake, not that he should have two Wifes at once, the one being yet alive, and in being, but to the end that after having left one, he may, if he will, take another lawfully. The Jesuit Petau in his Notes on the words of St. * 1.3 Epiphanius does acknowledge this was the Opinion of this Antient Do∣ctor, but he adds, That if at that time it was suffer'd to have it, because the Church had not yet determin'd any thing in this matter, it is not permitted at this time, after the decision of the Council of Trent, * 1.4 never∣theless he owns this Decree of Trent is not agreeable to some of those cited by Gratian, causa 32. quaest. 7. and also that Cardinal Cajetan, and some other Doctors of his Communion have followed an Opinion contrary to the definition of the Fathers of Trent; that is to say, That they believed that 'tis permitted to a Christian to put away his Wife for Adultery, and to marry another; in effect, not only Cajetan on the 19th chap. of St. Matth. but also Ambrose Catharine in the Fifth Book of his An∣notations, and Erasmus on the 7th chap. of the 1 Ep. to the Corinth. have been of this Judgment.

Auitus Bishop of Vienna at the end of the Fifth Cen∣tury, and beginning of the Sixth, sufficiently manifests that in his time, Divorcement was made for Adultery, with liberty to re-marry, * 1.5 observing in one of his Let∣ters, That 'tis for that cause alone God permits a man to separate from his wife: Upon which Father Sirmond who has Published the Works of Auilus, makes this ob∣servation; It from hence appears, that in that time it was believed in France, that the Husband might by the per∣mission of Jesus Christ, leave his Wife in case of Adultery, and marry another, Which he confirms by a Cannon of a Synod of Vannes, which I will cite anon.

Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gattinois was in the Ninth Century of the same Opinion with Auitus, * 1.6 for he says as well as him, that 'tis only Fornication can dis∣solve Marriage, to which Monsieur Baluze, who com∣pleated the last Edition with Learned Notes, applyes also the Jesuit Sirmond's Observation which I but now mention'd.

Isaac Bishop of Langres, in the Third Title of his Cannons which treat of Adulterys, saith plainly, chap. 1. That the Husband whose Wife is an Adulteress, has power to take another if he please: This Prelate wrote and liv'd in the Ninth Century.

I now come to the Councils whose Authority may contribute to the Establishment of the matter I examin, and I begin with the First Council of Arles, which the Emperour Constantine assembled in the Year 314, a Council famous for the Decrees there made, and for the number of Bishops which were there present, for there was 600, if several Writers may be credited. In effect, there is in the Collection of Letters of Ireland by Bishop Ʋsher, a Letter of Cummin a Priest, to the Abbot Seguinus touching the keeping Easter, * 1.7 wherein he wrote to him above a 1000 years ago. That the Coun∣cil of Arles composed of 600 Bishops, confirm'd in the First Cannon what had been concluded upon for the observing of Easter, that is to say, that it should be Celebrated all over the World at one time, and one day: Ado Bishop of Vienna, in the Ninth Century, writes in the Sixth Age of his Chronicle, That in the time that Marin was Bi∣shop of Arles, there met a Council of 600 Bishops In the 10th Spicilegium of Dom Luke D' Achery, and in the Additions, there is to be seen an observation touching Synods, which was taken from an Antient Collection writ above 800 years ago, wherein mention is made

of the Council we speak of, * 1.8 and of the number of 600 Bishops there present; and apparently it was in refe∣rence to this great number of Prelates, * 1.9 that the Fa∣thers of the Second Council assembled in the same City in the year 542, said in the Eighteenth Cannon, That the first was assembled from all parts of the World.

However it be, the Tenth Cannon of the First Coun∣cil which concerns the business we treat of, is expressed in these terms: As to young Men that are Believers, which surprize their Wifes in Adultery, and who are forbidden to marry others, It has seem'd good to us that they should be advis'd as much as may be; not to marry again during their Wifes life time although Adulteresses. I gather two things from this Cannon, First, Before the holding this Council, there were those which prohibited them which left their Wifes for Adultery to marry again. Secondly, That the Fathers of the Council to the num∣ber of 600, amongst which there are Two Priests and Two Deacons of the Church of Rome, which held the place of Silvester its Bishop; these Prelates having ma∣turely examined the business, changed the Prohibition into an Advice which they desired might be followed, but no farther than Mans weakness could bear, which shews that they did not believe as now a days in the Romish Communion, That the Band of Marriage is in∣dissolvable, though Adultery should intervene.

In the year of our Lord 465 there was held a Coun∣cil at Vannes in Brittany, see here its Second Cannon. As for those who forsake their Wifes, * 1.10 unless it be in case of Adultery, as is expressed in the Gospel, and do Marry others without having proved the Adultery, we ordain they shall be deprived of the Lords Supper, that is to say Ex∣communicated, lest through our remissness Sins unpunished may incline others to licentiousness. It appears by this

Cannon, that when the Adultery was proved, it was permitted to conclude another Marriage; it was so 'twas understood by Father Sirmond on the Letter of Auitus above-mentioned, wherein he was followed by his Nephew Mr. De la Lande Treasurer, of the Church of St. Framburg of Senlis; for in the Supplement of French Councils, * 1.11 he explains this Cannon in the same manner as I have explained it, and this ought not to be regarded as a private interpretation, seeing this Supplement was approved by the Clergy of France assembled at Paris in the years 1655, and 56.

The Synod of Agde in Languedoc in the year 506, * 1.12 marches in the same steps of that of Vannes, in the 25th Cannon, which Excommunicate those which put away their Wifes to marry themselves to others, before they represent to the Bishops of the Province the causes of their Separation, and before their Wifes have been condemn'd, that is for Adultery; for when they were once convicted, Husbands were permitted to Marry others; it is what is lawfully inferr'd from this Cannon.

Theodore Arch-Bishop of Canterbury held a Synod in the year 670, as Beda writes in his Ecclesiastical History of England, wherein he made these Cannons relating to Marriage. * 1.13 Let no Man forsake his Wife unless it be for Fornication, as the Gospel does direct: If any one puts away his Wife whom he has lawfully marryed, let him not marry another; if he will be a good Christian, but let him continue as he is, or let him be reconcil'd to his own Wife: That is, If he puts her away for any other cause than for Adultery; And it can't be question'd but this is the true meaning of the words of Theodore, especially if one considers that in Dom Luke D' Achery's Ninth Spi∣cilegium, There are a certain number of Cannons chosen

out of all those of the said Theodores, the 116th of which formally contains this Decree, * 1.14 It is permitted to him whose Wife has committed Adultery, to put her away, and to take another.

Gratian attributes this Decree to Pope Zachary who liv'd in the Eighth Century; * 1.15 You have layn with your Wifes Sister, if it be so, you cannot have to Wife neither the one nor the other; but as for her that was your Wife, if she consented not to this crime, and that she cannot con∣tain, she may marry in the Lord to whom she thinks sit. The Antient Copies, Manuscripts and Old Editions of Gratian produce this Decree, as being Pope Zachary's; yet there are Compilers of Decrees which have cited it as having taken it out of the Roman Penitential; * 1.16 but 'tis nothing the less considerable, seeing 'twas the Peni∣tential whereof Zachary was the Compiler. The Author of the Gloss explains the last words of the Cannon in this manner, Let her marry to whom she will: He ex∣plains them in adding these others, after the Death of her Husband; As if a Woman whose Husband was Dead, was not in full liberty to re-marry, without having any permission for so doing; whereas here there is question of a Man convicted of Adultery, whereby Marriage is dissolv'd; therefore the Woman which is Innocent, and has no share in the Husbands Crime, she is permitted to re-marry; Erasmus on the 7th chap. of the 1. Ep. to the Cor. where he examins the Que∣stion, Whether Divorce is sometimes permitted amongst Christians; Erasmus reproves and condemns the Gloss I but just now cited, as being contrary to the words of the Decree, and to the intention of Pope Zachary, to whom 'tis attributed, and he does so against the Ma∣ster of Sentences, * 1.17 who had interpreted the Cannon with this addition, that is to say, after the Death of the Hus∣band.

The Council of Verberie in Vallois assembled in the year 752, * 1.18 made several Decrees, the Second where∣of is compriz'd in these terms. If any one carnally knows his Wifes Daughter, he cannot have the Mother nor Daughter, and neither she nor him cannot never after marry any others; but as for the Wife, if she will, and if she cannot contain, if after she comes to know the Husband committed Adultery with her Daughter, she has no farther carnal knowledge with him, she may marry another Person, unless she will voluntarily abstain; and in the Tenth Can∣non; If a Son has committed Adultery with the Wife of his Father, neither he nor she cannot marry, but as for the Husband, if he will, he may marry another Wife; yet it were better to abstain.

That of Compiegne made this Decree Seven years af∣ter: * 1.19 If a Man has a lawful Wife, if his Brother commits Adultery with her, let not the Brother nor Wife which have been guilty of Adultery, never marry during life; But as for the Husband of the Wife, he is at his liberty to marry again if he please: The Fourteen and Fifteen Cannons Esta∣blish also the same Discipline. The Eighth Cannon is also found in the Fifth Book of Capitularies, chap. 19. it is apparently the Eighth Cannon of the Council re∣ported by Gratian, though in something different terms. Caus. 32. q. 7. c. Quaedam; under the Name of a Decree of a certain Council.

In the Roman Collection printed at Rome Fifteen years ago by Order of Cardinal Francis Barberin, Vice-Chancellor, and Dedicated by him to Pope Alexander the Seventh. There is found Two Synods held at Rome in the Ninth Century, One under Eugenius, the Second, the other under Leo the Fourth, and by the constitutions of the one and the other, one may separate for reason of Adultery, with power to re-marry; See

here what is contained in the 36th. Cannon of the for∣mer; That it be not permitted to any one whatsoever to for∣sake his Wife, and to joyn himself to another, unless it be in case of Adultery, otherwise the offender must take the former. The same Cannon is repeated in the Second, in the same Terms, and under the same Number of 36. * 1.20

The Council of Tribur, whereof I have already spoke, on the 13th Article, confirms the same practise in the 41. Cannon, where the Fathers require, that Bishops having regard to human frailty, should comfort those who have been separated for Adultery, and which cannot con∣tain, in suffering them to re-marry after having fulfill'd the time of their pennance.

The Frier Blastares whom I have already cited seve∣ral times, * 1.21 testifies that the Greek Church used so in his time, that is, in the 14th. Century, for amongst the se∣veral reasons for dissolving Marriage, he reckons Adulte∣ry, for the which he declares Marriage may lawfully be dissolved, and contract another, after sentence of the Judges.

It was in regard to this practise of the Eastern Nations, * 1.22 that the Ambassadors of Venice caused to be read in the Council of Trent a demand they made on the Anathema of divorces, which contain'd in substance, that their Republick held the Islands, and Kingdoms of Cyprus, Candy, Corfou, Zante, and Cephalony, inhabited by Greeks, who time out of mind have been wont to put away the wife guilty of Adultery, and to Marry another, and that this Custom known to the whole Church, Was never condemned nor blamed by any Council, and therefore that the Fathers would be pleased to dispose the Cannon that treated thereof in such a way, as should not be preju∣dicial to them, to which the Council had some regard, for the Opinion of the Greeks was not there directly con∣demn'd.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

It appears clearly by what has been hitherto said, that the Establishment of our Discipline, is very judicious and very conformable to the use and practise of the Ancient Church, and also to that of the present Greek Church; so that the innovation is in those which have forsaken the ways of their Fathers, and have taken a quite contrary course, in teaching that the band of Marriage is not to be broke, not even for cause of Adultery; yet I cannot think Pope Ʋrban the second was so severe, nor that he would absolutely have forbidden Marriage to a man that had left his wife after having convicted her of Adultery, and what makes me think so, is, for that in a Synod he held An: * 1.23 1093. At Troys in Poulle, it was resolved in the first Cannon, to dissolve the Marriage of two persons that were nearly related, on this condition however, That if they separated according to the Judgment of the Bishops, they were permitted to contract other Marriages, be∣cause they were young; what likelihood that Ʋrban with his Synod composed of 70 Bishops and 12 Abbots, should not have judged the band of Matrimony indissoluble in regard of those, and that he would have thought it so after the Adultery of one of the parties.

I am confident if occasion had offer'd, this Pope would not have done otherwise in regard of persons which separated by reason of Adultery, then the two Roman Synods I but now cited in the 9th. Century, and the Councils of Verbery and Compeign, in the 8th. who permitted as has been shewn, to the innocent party, to re-marry, when the band of the former Marrirge is quite broke by Adultery; certainly the Fathers of these two Councils intended not to forbid Marriage to those which Adultery had separated, seeing they allowed separation for things of much less moment than is that of Adultery, and that at the same time they grant power and liberty to

re-marry anew, for Example, the 3d. * 1.24 Cannon of the Synod of Verbery is conceiv'd in these terms; If a Priest has Mar∣ry'd his Neece, let him leave her, and be deposed; If another takes her to wife, let him put her away also, because 'tis a thing blame worthy that another Man should marry her which was put away by a Priest; but if the man cannot contain, let him marry some other.

The 5th. cannon contains this Decree; If a Woman has con∣triv'd the Death of her Husband with other Men, and that the Husband in his own defence kills him that comes to murder him, and that he can prove it; he may repudiate his Wife, and marry another if he please. The 9th. permits him that is forced to quit his Country to go to live in another, and that his Wife will not follow him, it permits him to Marry another.

In the 6th. it is permitted to a free Man that shall have Marry'd a slave, thinking her to be of a free condition, he is permitted to take another, if the first be put again under servitude, and that she cannot be ransomed, the same power is given to a free woman that shall marry a slave, not knowing he was so, unless he had been forc∣ed by famine to sell himself by consent of his Wife, and that the price of the sale of the Husband had served to preserve the Wife from Want and perishing by famine; besides this, the Woman might put away her Husband, and Marry another, if she cannot contain.

This last Cannon of the Synod of Verbery in the 5th. * 1.25 of that of Compeign, where we Read these words; If a free man has taken in Marriage a woman whom he thought to be free, and afterwards he found she was not, let him put her away if he will, and let him Mar∣ry another.

The 4th. of the same Council of Compeign makes this or∣dinance; If a man has marri'd his Wises Daughter being

of a free state, to a free man, or to a slave, or to a Church∣man, and that he married her against her will, and against the will of her Mother, and her relations, if she will not have him for a Husband, and that she leave him, her Relations may give her another, or if she herself has Married another, after having left the first, let them not be separated.

In the 13th. we Read this, if any one has left his wife; and in consideration of Piety and Religion, he has given her liberty to enter into a Monastery; or that for the Love of God, he has suffer'd her to take the vail out of a Mo∣nastery; let this Man take a lawful wife, and let the Wo∣man do the same on the like occasion.

The 16th. is contained in these words, if a Leprous man has a Wife that is clean and sound, and that he will suffer her to marry another, let the woman marry ano∣ther if she please, * 1.26 and let the Husband do the same. Pope Stephen the second prescribed near hand the same thing three years before, from whence may be gathered, that according to all appearance he would have made no difficulty to approve the re-marrying of those whom A∣dultery had separated.

Nevertheless I could produce several other proofs for Establishing the matter I Examine, if I feared not to be to tedious, I will therefore end this enquiry by two remarks; the first concerns Ecclesiastical Writers which teach, that it is lawful to separate for Adultery, as Ter∣tullian who thus explains himself; * 1.27 If God has prohibited under such condition to put away ones Wife, he has not abso∣lutely forbidden it; and what he has not absolutely forbidden, be his permitted. Lactantius saith, That he is an Adulte∣rer that forsakes his Wife, * 1.28 to marry another, if he leaves her for any other cause then for the Sin of Adultery, The Law saith Gregory Nazianzen gives the Bill of Divorce for all

things; but as for Jesus Christ he gives it not for all things, but he only permits to separate from the shameless and adul∣terous woman: This separation if we follow the Explica∣tion of Father Sirmond on the 46th. Letter of Auctus, imports the Power of Marrying another, to which a∣mounts also what is said by Theophilact on the 5th. chap. of St. Matth: That he that put away his Wife for just cause, That is to say for Adultery, is not subject to any condemnation: I say the same of all those which have ex∣plained themselves near hand in the same manner, as St. Basil in his first Cannonical Epistle to Amphilochius, Can. 9th. and some other.

In my second Remark I produce the Testimonies of two famous Doctors of the Greek Church, which testifie Marriage is entirely dissolved by Adultery, and that the band is quite broke, the first is of St. * 1.29 Chrysostome who in his Homilies on the 7th. chap. of the first Epistle to the Cor. teaches positively, That the Husband which puts a∣way an Adulterous Wife is not culpable; And if you ask him the Reason, he'll tell you it is, The Marriage is already dissolved, and that after the fornication, the the Husband is no longer a Husband.

The other Witness is Theodoret, who Treating of this business in his Therapeutique, or manner of healing the affections of the Greeks, makes this Reflection, * 1.30 worthy himself: The Authour of Nature in Creating human Na∣ture made at first one Man and one Woman, and forbid to dissolve Marriage, having not suffer'd to dissolve it, but for one only cause which indeed doth break the band: And having instanced the Words of the Gospel where Je∣sus Christ suffers to separate for Adultery, and to Mar∣ry again, He adds. * 1.31 By these Words Jesus Christ com∣mands to bear all other faults in a Woman, her prating, Drun∣kenness, Evil speaking; but if she violates the Lawes of Mar∣riage,

then He commands to dissolve and break the Bands: Nothing can be desir'd more positive nor more clear for proving the matter I treat of, therefore I conclude, in observing, that St. Chrysostom and Theodoret's Deposi∣tions do no less favour the Article of our Deposition, than the Testimonies I produced at first, as well of Ecclesiastical Writers, as of Councils, by all which I have made clearly appear, that in the Ancient Church they were perswaded, as they are at this present amongst the Greeks, and amongst the Protestants, that Jesus Christ suffers Christians to separate from their Wifes for the reason of Adultery, and to marry others.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Tom. 2. Biol. Sal. p. 168.
• * 1.2

  pag. 365.
• * 1.3

  Tom. 2. p. 255.
• * 1.4

  Sess. 24. cap. 7.
• * 1.5

  Ep. 49. p. 110.
• * 1.6

  Ep. 29. pag. 54.
• * 1.7

  Ep. 11. p. 28.
• * 1.8

  Tom 10. p 633.
• * 1.9

  Tom. 1. Conc. Gall. p. 105. Tom. 1. Conc. Gall. p. 6.
• * 1.10

  Tom. 1. Gall. p. 138.
• * 1.11

  pag. 349.
• * 1.12

  Tom. 1. Conc. Gall. p. 166.
• * 1.13

  Lib. 4. c. 5.
• * 1.14

  pag. 62.
• * 1.15

  ca. 32. c. 7. Conc. Concn∣bai••ii.
• * 1.16

  Binchard. lib. 19. c. 5. Enq.
• * 1.17

  Lib. 4. dist. 34.
• * 1.18

  Tom. 2. Conc. Gall. p. 2.
• * 1.19

  Ib. Can. 8. p. 43.
• * 1.20

  Ibid. p••g. 92.
• * 1.21

  Let. G. c. 13. pag. 73, 74.
• * 1.22

  Hist. of the Coun∣cil of Trent by P. Saovo. lib. 8. pag. 920, 921.
• * 1.23

  Apud Marcam de conc. li. 4. c. 14. pag. 282.
• * 1.24

  Tom. 1. conc. Gal. pag. 3.
• * 1.25

  Ubi supra 42, 43, 44
• * 1.26

  Ib. can. 2.9.
• * 1.27

  Contr. Marc. l. 4. c. 34.
• * 1.28

  Lib. 6. Divin. In∣stit. orat. 31. p. 501
• * 1.29

  Hom. 19. pag. 484, 485.
• * 1.30

  Serm. 9. Legib. l. 4 pag. 619.
• * 1.31

  Ib. p. 620.