In perfect consistency with these strict precautions against the introduction of unworthy persons into the sacred office, was the character of the discipline to which the clergy were subjected. This, in some respects, was more severe than that of private members of the church. The latter, if penitent, might regain their former standing, but the excommunicated or degraded minister could never be restored to the clerical order. The offences which exposed a clergyman to censure were numerous from the first; and they regularly increased as the purity of ancient Christianity diminished. Many of them originated in the peculiar trials to which primitive Christians were subject, and in the heresies and defections consequent upon them. We subjoin the following account of the punishments inflicted upon offending ministers during the first seven or eight

centuries.

1. Suspension. This related either to the salary of the clergyman, or to his office. Both methods of punishment were practised by the ancient church. An instance is related in the writings of Cyprian of some whose monthly wages were suspended, while they were allowed to continue in the discharge of their office. Decrees to this effect were ordained by the councils of Nice, Ephesus and Agde.

Suspension from office was varied according to circumstan

ces.

At one time the offender was suspended from the performance of the active duties of his office, whilst he still retained his clerical rank with his brethren in the ministry. At another, he was forbidden to perform some of the duties of his office, while he continued in the discharge of others; and again, he was debarred the performance of all ministerial duties for a definite period of time.

2. Degradation. This punishment consisted, as its name implies, in removing the offender from a higher to a lower grade of office. This sentence of degradation appears to have been final and irrevocable. Bishops were in this manner transferred from a larger to a smaller or less important diocese. Presbyters were degraded to the order of deacons; and deacons, to that of subdeacons. This species of punishment was also inflicted upon bishops in Africa, by superseding them in their expected succession to the office of archbishop or metropolitan.

3. Exclusion from the communion. Of this there were two kinds, which were denominated communio peregrina, and communio laica. The former has sometimes been confounded

with the latter, or it has been supposed to denote a communion in one kind, or communion only at the point of death, which, in the Romish church, was regarded as a kind of passport to the future world. The most probable explanation of this point, confessedly obscure, is, that the term communion implied not only a participation in the eucharist, but in all the rights and privileges of a member of the church. Travellers and strangers, unless they had testimonials certifying to their regular standing in the church, were presumed to be under censure, and were not allowed the privileges of full communion, though permitted to receive, if need be, a maintenance from the funds of the church. An instance is related of Chrysostom, who on a certain occasion hospitably entertained the bishop of Alexandria, who had fled from persecution to him at Constantinople; but the bishop was not allowed to partake of the eucharist, until it had been fully ascertained that no just accusation could be brought against him. Clergymen under censure were sometimes treated in this way in their own communion. They were placed in the same relations as strangers, which was denoted by the phrase communio peregrina. Under these circumstances they could neither officiate nor be present at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, until they had given the prescribed satisfaction.

The act of communion was indeed the highest privilege of a layman; but it was a severe rebuke to one who had been elevated to the rank of the clergy to be again degraded to the condition of a layman, and to be required to communicate as a layman at the table of the Lord. This was a kind of mitigated excommunication. He was excluded from the body of the clergy and reduced to the condition of a humble individual. In this situation he was required to perform certain services for that same body from which he had been expelled. This was styled communio laica, and the subject of this penalty was said to be delivered over to the secular arm,-curiæ tradi,-in the phraseology of the ancient canonists.

4. Imprisonment. The custom of confining delinquent clergymen in monasteries appears to have taken its rise in the fourth and fifth centuries. At a later period it became a frequent mode of punishment.

5. Corporal punishment. This kind of punishment, together with the last mentioned, was inflicted only on clergy of the inferior orders. This mode of punishment was by no means uncommon in the time of Augustine. A presbyter, who had given false witness, could first be deposed from his office; and then, as a layman, might be subjected to corporal punishment.

Connected with the churches in large cities, such as Constantinople, there were houses of correction, decanica, for administering the correction of imprisonment and of corporal punish

ment.

6. Excommunication. This was the last and highest form of ecclesiastical censure. It cut off all hope on the part of the offender from ever being again reinstated in the ministry, even if he were restored to the fellowship of the churches. None who had at any time been exposed to public censure, were restored again to their office.

The above penalties appear to have been inflicted by authority of ecclesiastical councils alone, or at least to have been prescribed by them.

ARTICLE XI.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

1.-The Nestorians; or the Lost Tribes ; containing Evidence of their Identity, an Account of their Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, together with Sketches of Travel in ancient Assyria, Armenia, Media and Mesopotamia, and Illustrations of Scripture Prophecy: by Asahel Grant, M. D. New-York, Harper & Brothers, 1841. pp. 385.

We begin our notice of this book by expressing our high estimation of its value. It is intensely interesting and instruc tive. Dr. Grant, as our readers generally know, is one of the missionaries to Persia, sent out by the American Board of Foreign Missions. His work is a valuable accession to the vast amount of information, and even of critical and learned research, for which not only the Christian public, but the literary world is indebted to the published correspondence and other productions of the missionaries of that Board.

The first part of the volume,-130 pages,-contains an account of the author's travels and missionary labors, dangers and privations, from the spring of 1835 to 1840, during which he accomplished a more extensive exploration of the country of the Nestorians, than has been effected by any modern traveller. He went out as a physician, and by means of his profes

sion was enabled to disarm the prejudices and secure the confidence of the warring and cruel tribes of the Koordish mountains, and obtain access to regions, where, in any other character, his life would have been in imminent peril. Many of the scenes and incidents of his travels are of thrilling interest, and his observation of the country, the customs and traditions of the people, etc. throws much light upon that ancient portion of the world.

But that which renders this work especially valuable is the evidence which it is supposed to contain of the identity of the Nestorians with the "Lost Tribes" of ancient Israel. Dr. Grant expresses great confidence that he has found, in the Nestorian Christians and the Jews of the same country, the remnant of the Ten Tribes, who were carried away captive into Assyria, by Shalmaneser, about 720 years before the birth of Christ. 2 Kings 17: 9-12. We have read this portion of the book with care, and most cordially commend it to our readers. It will richly reward a diligent perusal, and will be found in a high degree entertaining, as well as instructive. We are not, however, convinced that the lost tribes have really been found. Our author's arguments to this point, though rich in materials and ingeniously urged, are to us inconclusive. That our readers may see at a glance some of the ground of our hesitation, we add the following suggestions.

About 125 years after the captivity of Israel above referred to, Judah and Benjamin were also carried into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Chaldea. Jer. 39: 10, etc. Seventy years afterwards there was a restoration of a portion of the tribes of Israel to their native land, in which the tribes of Judah and Benjamin partook most largely. A large portion of the other tribes remained in captivity, and have become lost to history. By some means a presumption has been entertained that the ten tribes, thus lost, have still a separate existence, and that they will be restored, with the Jews, before the conversion of the Gentiles. This opinion is founded on various prophecies which speak of the return of the children of Israel, and which are supposed to be not yet fulfilled,-upon a statement of Josephus, that a large part of those tribes still resided east of the Euphrates in his day, and some other supposed allusions to the ten tribes, in the Scriptures and the Apocrypha. Several theories have accordingly been started on this subject, among which, in our own country, are those of Boudinot"Star in the West,"-and Smith," View of the Hebrews," both of whom confidently urge the identity of the American Indians with the lost tribes. Dr. Grant maintains, with much

more plausibility, that the tribes in question have their separate existence among the mountains of Koordistan. We are ready, indeed, to grant, that, if these tribes are to be found anywhere, if they are not lost and absorbed in the idolatrous nations to whom they were subjected,- —our author has found them. His arguments are conclusive to prove that the Nestorians had a Jewish origin; but whether they are a remnant of the ten tribes, or of the two, or of the twelve, are questions not answered by the interesting witnesses here introduced; and we are driven back upon the inquiry, whether the expectation of finding the lost tribes is well founded,-whether the fulfilment of prophecy demands that they should be found anywhere, as a separate people? Some of the predictions quoted by Dr. Grant and others have respect as well to the two tribes as to the ten, and require their return to be simultaneous, and all of them seem to be capable of a similar application :-"I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return," etc. Jer. 33: 7. Whatever portion of these prophecies, therefore, remain yet to be fulfilled, we are inclined to look for their accomplishment in the conversion of both Judah and Israel to the faith of the Gospel. It is with this expectation, rather than with the idea that the ten tribes have still a separate existence in Persia and Koordistan, that we value the labors of our author. It is interesting, and confirmatory of the faith of the church to find so much evidence of the provi dential preservation, during so many centuries, of a band of early converts from Judaism, who, we may hope, through the strengthening hand of their brethren in more favored countries, will yet become as "life from the dead," to the Gentiles in the midst of whom they have been so wonderfully kept from falling into hopeless idolatry.

We forbear to pursue this subject farther, with the expectation of being favored with a review of Dr. Grant's work in season for our October No.

2.-Lectures on Universalism. By Rev. Joel Parker, D. D., President of the Union Theological Seminary, New-York. New-York: John S. Taylor & Co. 1841. pp. 192.

The principal part of this volume was written about thirteen years ago. Two editions have been exhausted, and the work has been out of print for several years. The author now presents it in a form somewhat more expanded and complete. His mode of discussing the subject may be learned from the titles of the several Lectures, which are as follows:-Direct SECOND SERIES, VOL. VI. NO. I.

20