[1] The place of St. Rumold’s death is contested. According
to certain Belgic and other Martyrologies, he was
of the blood royal of Scotland (as Ireland was then
called) and bishop of Dublin. This opinion is ably
supported by F. Hu. Ward, an Irish Franciscan, a man
well skilled in the antiquities of his country, in a
work entitled Dissertatio Historica de Vita et Patria
S. Rumoldi, Archiepiscopi Dubliniensis, published at
Louvain in 1662, in 4to. The learned pope Benedict XIV.
seems to adjudge St. Rumold to Ireland, in his letter
to the prelates of that kingdom dated the 1st of
August, 1741, wherein are the following words: “Quod
si recensere voluerimus sanctissimos viros Columbanum,
Kilianum, Virgilium, Rumoldum, Gallum, aliosque plures
qui ex Hibernia in alias provincias catholicam fidem
invexerunt, aut illam per martyrium effuso sanguine
collustrarunt.” (Hib. Dom. Suppl. p. 831.) On the other
hand, Janning the Bollandist undertakes to prove that
St. Rumold was an English Saxon. See Janning and J. B.
Sellerii Acta S. Rumoldi, Antverp, 1718; also F. Ward,
and Ware’s bishops, p. 305.
[2] St. John Damascen. Serm. de Transfig. Dom.
[3] Gildas, c. 8.
[4] Bede, Hist l. 1. c. 7.
[5] The second kingdom of Burgundy was begun in 890, by
Ralph, nephew to Bozon, whom the emperor Charles the
Bald, king of France, had made king of Arles in 876,
giving him Provence and part of Dauphiné. This second
kingdom of Burgundy comprised Provence, Savoy, the
Viennois, and the county of Burgundy. The duchy of
Burgundy had its duke at the same time.
[6] It is nine leagues from Mans. Childebert in the charter
says that the land had been already given to the saint
by Clovis his father. (Marten. Amp. Coll. tom. 1, p. 1.)
This is also attested by Nicholas, Ep. ad Episc. Gall.
and is likewise insinuated by Siviard in his life of
St. Calais.
[7] Salus in the Syriac signifies foolish.
[8] St. Tho. 2, 2.
[9] Imit. of Chr. b. 1, c. 20.
[10] Phil. iii. 29.
[11] From the word joy used by the evangelist on this
occasion, and from the unanimous consent of the fathers,
it is manifest that the holy infant anticipated the use
of reason, and that this was not a mere natural motion,
as some protestants have imagined, but the result of
reason, and the effect of holy joy and devotion.
[12] Phil. iv. 20.
[13] Nero reigned the first five years with so much clemency,
that once when he was to sign an order for the death of
a condemned person, he said: “I wish I could not write.”
But his master Seneca and Burrhus the prefect of the
prætorium, to whom this his moderation was owing, even
then discovered in him a bent to cruelty, to correct
which they strove to give his passion another turn.
With this view Seneca wrote and inscribed to him
a treatise On Clemency, which we still have. But
both Seneca and Burrhus connived at an adulterous
intrigue in which he was engaged in his youth: so very
defective was the virtue of the best among the heathen
philosophers. If the tutors imagined that by giving up
a part, they might save the rest, and by indulging him
in the softer passions they might check those which
seemed more fatal to the commonwealth, the event
showed how much they were deceived by this false human
prudence, and how much more glorious it would have been
to have preferred death to the least moral evil, could
paganism have produced any true martyrs of virtue.
The passions are not to be stilled by being soothed:
whatever is allowed them is but an allurement to go
farther, and soon makes their tyranny uncontrollable.
Of this Nero is an instance. For, availing himself
of this indulgence, he soon gave an entire loose to
all his desires, especially when he began to feel
the dangerous pleasure of being master of his own
person and actions. He plunged himself publicly, and
without shame or constraint, into the most infamous
debaucheries, in which such was the perversity of his
heart, that, as Suetonius tells us, he believed nobody
to be less voluptuous and abandoned than himself,
though he said they were more private in their crimes,
and greater hypocrites: notwithstanding, at that very
time, Rome abounded with most perfect examples of
virtue and chastity among the Christians.
There is a degree of folly inseparable from vice. But
this in Nero seemed by superlative malice to degenerate
into downright phrenzy. All his projects consisted
in the extravagances of a madman; and nothing so much
flattered his pride as to undertake things that seemed
impossible. He forgot all common rules of decency,
order, or justice. It was his greatest ambition to sing
or perform the part of an actor on the stage, to play
on musical instruments in the theatre, or to drive a
chariot in the circus. And whoever did not applaud all
his performances, or had not the complaisance to let
him carry the prize at every race or public diversion,
his throat was sure to be cut, or he was reserved
for some more barbarous death. For cruelty was the
vice which above all others has rendered his name
detestable. At the instigation of Poppæa, a most
infamous adulteress, he caused his mother Agrippina to
be slain in the year 58, and from that time it seemed
to be his chief delight to glut his savage mind with
the slaughter of the bravest, the most virtuous, and
the most noble persons of the universe, especially of
those that were nearest to him. He put to death his
wife Octavia after many years ill usage, and he cut off
almost all the most illustrious heads of the empire.
[14] On account of the murder of St. Stanislas, slain by
Boleslas II.
[15] Serm. v. de Laz. t. 1, p. 765.
[16] St. Chrys. l. 1, ad Vid. Junior. t. 1, p. 341.
[17] According to the Registers of Landaff, quoted by Usher,
St. Oudoceus was son of Budic II. prince of Cornwall,
in Armorica; and was committed to the care of St.
Theliau, when he removed to Armorica. But Usher is
mistaken, as he dates this fact at 596. For we learn
from St. Gregory of Tours that Thierri, son of Budic,
was made prince of Cornwall in 577, and that his father
was dead a long time before.
[18] P. 178, ed. Combefis.
[19] Not. ib. t. 2, p. 704, Op. St. Chrys.
[20] T. 2, ed. Ben. p. 704.
[21] The abbey of Kemperle is three leagues from Port-Louis
and eight from Quimper.
[22] In Latin Berti Cramnus, Bertrannus: not Bertrandus.
[23] Lugo in Decal. See Less. l. de Valetud.
[24] Jos. ix. 14.
[25] See these laws in Spelman, Conc. t. 1, and Wilkins,
Conc. Brit. t. 1.
[26] Cent. 10.
[27] Extant in Monast. Anglic. App., vol. 1.
[28] The Welch laws of Howel Dha, that is, Howel the Good,
are published by Dr. Wotton, in folio, 1735.
[29] See Inett, History of the Church of England, t. 1.
[30] Rosweide, Vit. Patr. l. 5, lib. 4, n. 38.
[31] Ibid. l. 6, lib. 2, n. 14.
[32] Cotelier, Monum. Gr. p. 675.
[33] Cotelier, ib. p. 670, Rosweide, l. 3, p. 103.
[34] Cotelier, ib. p. 672.
[35] Rosweide, Vid. Patr. l. 5, lib. 15, n. 47.
[36] Rosweide, Vit. Patr. l. 5, lib. 1, n. 17.
[37] Rosweide, Vit. Patr. l. 5, lib. 15, n. 44.
[38] Ibid. n. 46.
[39] Ibid. l. 5, lib. 8, n. 15.
[40] Ibid. l. 6, lib. 9, n. 5.
[41] Cotelier, ibid. p. 669.
[42] Rosweide, Vit. Patr. l. 5, lib. 4, n. 39, et l. 6,
lib. 3, n. 6.
[43] Cotelier, p. 671.
[44] Rufin. ap. Rosw. l. 3, n. 162.
[45] Rosweide, Vit. Patr. l. 5, lib. 16, n. 10.
[46] Cotelier, t. 1, p. 678.
[47] The monastery of Blangy was founded in 686. Having
been destroyed during the incursions of the Normans,
it was rebuilt in the eleventh century, and given to
the religious of the Order of St. Benedict. It is still
in being.
[48] She was widow of Guy of Chatillon, count of St. Pol,
brother to Maud.
[49] St. Cypr. l. de Oper. et Eleem.
[50] L. 1, de Offic. c. 30.
[51] The abbé Ma-Geoghegan, in his history of Ireland,
published in Paris in 1758, asserts that the Scots
were originally Scythians, or properly Celto-Scythians,
of Spanish original. Foreign writers of repute bear
witness to this extraction: the native historians of
Ireland have at all times been unanimous in recording
it, and have adduced testimonies in support of it,
which cannot be easily overthrown, as some moderns, who
made the attempt, have experienced. The ancient Fileas
of Ireland have indeed (like the old poets of all other
European nations) shrouded real facts in a veil of
pompous fables. Thus they pretended the leaders of this
Spanish colony were the descendants of a celebrated
Breogan, and that a grandson of this Breogan was
married to an Egyptian heroine named Scota, from whom
the Irish took the name of Kinea-Scuit or Scots, as
they took the appellation of Clan-Breogan or Brigantes,
from the former. But such inventions, acceptable to
the credulity and flattering to the pride of nations,
cannot discredit any fact otherwise well attested.
The British Brigantes were probably descendants of the
Irish Brigantes, as the Scots of Britain were certainly
descendants from those of Ireland. Tacitus, in the
first age of the Christian era, has thought from the
difference of complexion and frame of body observable
among the British tribes of his time, that some were of
Spanish original; and an earlier writer, Seneca, in his
satire on the emperor Claudius, makes mention of the
Scuta-Brigantes, which Scaliger, by needless correction,
makes Scoto-Brigantes, as the Irish wrote Scuit and
Scoit indifferently. This testimony of Seneca is a
proof that the name Scots or Scuits, was known to
some Roman writers so early as the first century; and
the Irish appellations of Kinea-Scuit and Clan-Breogan
plainly point out the proper country of those
Scuta-Brigantes in the time of the emperor Nero.
Mr. Geoghegan looks upon the Irish to be a mother
tongue; and it may justly be so denominated,
notwithstanding the adoption of some foreign terms,
and some variations of construction introduced by time
in all languages, before they arrive at their classical
standard. Some writings of the fifth century show
that this language was at its full perfection before
the introduction of the gospel by Roman missionaries
in the fourth and fifth centuries. The notion that
this language is a dialect of the modern Biscayan is
undoubtedly groundless. The latter tongue owes its
original to some nation of those barbarians who settled
in Guipuscoa and other parts of the Pyrenean regions,
on the decline of the Roman empire, nor are the few
words common in the Basque and Irish tongues any
proof that the one is descended from the other. This
observation will hold good relatively to the Welsh and
Irish languages. They differ entirely in syntax, and
show that the two nations speaking those tongues have
different Celtic originals.
Bollandus says that St. Patrick taught the first
alphabet to the Irish: he means the Roman alphabet,
and should not forget that it was taught very near an
age before, by earlier missionaries in the parts of
Ireland which they converted to the faith. In the
antecedent times the Fileas or ancient Irish writers,
inscribed their ideas on tablets of wood, by the means
of seventeen cyphers, of which their ancestors learned
the use before their arrival in Ireland; nor is this
fact obscured, but is rather enlightened by a fable of
the Fileas, setting forth that some of those ancestors
were instructed in letters by a celebrated Phenius,
famous for literary knowledge in the East. Through this
poetical veil we plainly discern the Phenicians, who
first instructed the Europeans (the Greeks, Lybians,
Italians, and Spaniards particularly) in the use of
letters and other arts. Spain, according to Strabo,
had the use of letters in a very early period; and
that a colony from that country should import into,
and cultivate also, those elements of knowledge in
Ireland, is not improbable: the perfection of the Irish
language before the introduction of Christianity is an
incontrovertible proof of the fact.
* * * * *
The Scots are represented as a rude and barbarous
people in the fourth and fifth ages, even by some
eminent ecclesiastical writers. But these as well as
other foreign historians have not, if at all, been
resident long enough in Ireland to pronounce the
natives barbarous, if those writers took that epithet
in the worst sense it can bear. St. Jerom avers that
when an adolescentulus, he saw a Scot in Gaul feeding
upon human flesh, but the child, in this case, might
impose upon the man, or if otherwise, a nation is not
to be characterised from the barbarity of an individual,
or even of a single tribe in an extensive country. That
some barbarous customs prevailed in Ireland during the
ages mentioned, cannot be denied; and that some prevail
at this day in most of the modern states of Europe,
called enlightened, is a matter of fatal experience. In
the documents still preserved in the native language of
the ancient Irish, we learn that after the reform made
of the order of Fileas in the first century, houses
and ample landed endowments were set apart for those
philosophers, who, in the midst of the most furious
civil wars, were by common consent to be left
undisturbed; that they were to be exempt from every
employment but that of improving themselves in abstract
knowledge, and cultivating the principal youths of the
nation in their several colleges; that in the course
of their researches they discovered and exposed the
corrupt doctrines of the Druids; and that an enlightened
monarch called Cormac O’Quin took the lead among the
Fileas in the attack upon that order of priests, and
declared publicly for the unity of the Godhead against
Polytheism, and for the adoration of one supreme,
omnipotent, and merciful Creator of heaven and earth.
The example of that monarch, and the disquisitions of
the Fileas relating to religion and morality, paved
the way for the reception of the gospel; and as the
doctrines of our Saviour made the quickest progress
among civilized nations, the conversion of Ireland
in a shorter compass of time than we read of in the
conversion of any other European country, brings a
proof that the natives were not the rude barbarians
some ancient authors have represented them to be.
[52] Antiq. Brit. Eccl. c. 16, p. 408, 412.
[53] Prosp. Contra Collat. c. 44.
[54] See the note on the life of St. Patrick in this work;
also Ware’s Antiq. by Harris, with his remarks on
Dempster, c. 1, p. 4.
[55] Usher, p. 418.
[56] Certain ancient principal Scottish saints are
commemorated in an ancient Scottish calendar published
by Mr. Robert Keith, as follows:
January
8. St. Nethalan, B. C. An. 452.
21. St. Vimin, B. An. 715.
29. St. Macwoloc, B. An. 720.
30. Saint Macglastian, B. An. 814.
February
7. St. Ronan, B. C. An. 603.
March
1. St. Minan, archdeacon, C. An. 879.
Also St. Marnan, B. An. 655.
4. St. Adrian, B. of St. Andrew’s, M. He was
slain by the Danes in 874, and buried in
the isle of Man.
6. St. Fredoline, C. An. 500.
11. St. Constantine, king of Scotland, a monk
and M. An. 556.
17. St. Kyrinus or Kyrstinus, surnamed Boniface,
B. of Ross, An. 660.
April
1. St. Gilbert, B. of Caithness, An. 1140.
12. St. Ternan, archbishop of the Picts, ordained
by Saint Palladius, about the year 450.
16. St. Manus or Mans, M. in Orkney, An. 1104.
19. Translation of St. Margaret’s body to
Dunfermline.
July
6. St. Palladius, apostle of Scotland.
August
10. St. Blanc, B. C.
27. St. Malrube, hermit, martyred by the Danes,
in Scotland, in 1040.
September
16. St. Minian, B. C. in 450, or according to
some, a whole century later.
22. St. Lolan, B. of Whithern or Galloway.
October
25. St. Marnoc, B. C. died at Kilmarnock in the
fourth or fifth century.
November
2. Saint Maure, from whom Kilmaures is named,
An. 899.
12. St. Macar, B. of Murray, M. 887.
St. Germanus, B. C. said to have been appointed bishop
of the isles by St. Patrick. Under his invocation the
cathedral of the isle of Man is dedicated. St. Macull
or Mauchold, in Latin Macallius, bishop in the same
place from 494 to 518. In his honor many churches are
dedicated in Scotland, and one in the isle of Man. He
is honored on the 25th of April. St. Brendan, from whom
a church in the isle of Man is called Kirk-Bradan, was
bishop of the isles in the ninth century.
N. B. The isle of Man has had its own bishop from the
time it came into the hands of the English in the days
of Edward I. of England, and David II. of Scotland. It
was anciently subject to the bishop of the Isles, who
always resided at Hy-columbkill till the extinction
of episcopacy in Scotland, in 1688. The bishops both
of the isles and of Man took the title of Episcopus
Sodorensis; which Mr. Keith (p. 175) derives (not from
any towns), but from the Greek word Soter or Saviour,
because the cathedral of Hy-columbkill is dedicated to
our Saviour. See Mr. Robert Keith, in his new Catalogue
of bishops in Scotland, printed at Edinburgh, in 4to.
An. 1755.
Le Neve supposes with Spotiswood that the isle of Man
had its bishops after Amphibalus, who lived in the
fourth age, that they were called bishops of Soder
from a village of that name in the island, and that the
title was transferred to the island of Hy-columbkill
in the eighth age, when the two sees were united into
one. But the succession of bishops in the isle of Man
is not sufficiently clear.
Matthew Paris says that Wycomb was first bishop of Man,
in the twelfth age, and that he was consecrated by the
archbishop of York. See Le Neve. Fasti Anglic.
[57] Hect. Boet. l. 7, fol. 128.
[58] Sozom. l. 3, c. 14.
[59] Rufin. b. 5, c. 10.
[60] Socrates, in all things he said, used to add this form
of speech, “By my Dæmon’s leave.” And just upon the
point of expiring, he ordered a cock to be sacrificed
to Esculapius (Plato’s Phædo sub finem). And in his
trial we read one article of his impeachment to have
been a charge of unnatural lust. Thales, the prince
of naturalists, being asked by Crœsus what God was,
put off that prince from time to time, saying, “I
will consider on it.” But the meanest mechanic among
the Christians can explain himself intelligibly on
the Creator of the universe. Diogenes could not be
contented in his tub without gratifying his passions.
And when with his dirty feet he trod upon Plato’s
costly carpets, crying that he trampled upon the pride
of Plato, he did this, as Plato answered him, with
greater pride. Pythagoras affected tyranny at Thurium,
and Zeno at Pyrene. Lycurgus made away with himself
because he was unable to bear the thought of the
Lacedæmonians correcting the severity of his laws.
Anaxagoras had not fidelity enough to restore to
strangers the goods which they had committed to his
trust. Aristotle could not sit easy till he proudly
made his friend Hermias sit below him; and he was as
gross a flatterer of Alexander for the sake of vanity,
as Plato was of Dionysius for his belly. From Plato
and Socrates the stoics derived their proud maxim, “The
wise man is self-sufficient.” Epictetus himself allows
“to be proud of the conquest of any vice.” Aristotle
(Ethic. ad Nicom. l. 10, c. 7) and Cicero patronize
revenge. See B. Cumberland of the Laws of Nature, c. 9,
p. 346. Abbé Batteux demonstrates the impiety and vices
of Epicurus mingled with some virtues and great moral
truths. (La Morale d’Epicure, à Paris, 1758.) The like
blemishes may be found in the doctrine and lives of
all the other boasted philosophers of paganism. See
Theodoret. De curandis Græcor. affectibus, &c.
[61] King Ina ruled the West-Saxons thirty-seven years
with great glory, from the abdication of Ceadwalla
who died at Rome. Ina vanquished the Welsh, several
domestic rebels, and foreign enemies; made many pious
foundations, and rebuilt in a sumptuous manner the
abbey of Glastenbury. Ralph or Ranulph Higden in
his Polychronicon, and others say this king first
established the Rome-scot or Peter-pence, which was a
collection of a penny from every house in his kingdom
paid yearly to the see of Rome. By considering the
vanities of the world and moved by the frequent
exhortations of the queen his wife, he renounced the
world in 728 in the highest pitch of human felicity,
and leaving his kingdom to Ethelheard his kinsman,
travelled to Rome, was there shorn a monk, and grew old
in that mean habit. His wife accompanied him thither,
confirmed him in that course, and imitated his example:
so that living not far from each other in mutual love,
and in the constant exercises of penance and devotion,
they departed this life at Rome not without doing
divers miracles, as William of Malmesbury and H.
Huntingdon write. In 696 Sebbi, the pious king of the
East-Saxons, preferred also a private life to a crown,
took the monastic habit with the blessing of bishop
Whaldere, successor to St. Erkenwald in the see of
London, after bestowing a great sum of money in charity,
and soon after departed this life in the odor of
sanctity. See Bede b. 4, c. 11.
[62] Spelman Conc. Brit. t. 1.
[63] B. 5, ch. 19.
[64] Bede, p. 3, c. 6.
[65] On St. Edelburga see Solier the Bollandist, ad diem
7 Julij, t. 2, p. 481. She is called in French St.
Aubierge. See on her also Du Plessis, Hist. de Meaux.
[66] Published by Dom. Martenne, Anecdot. t. 4.
[67] Urban VIII. Constit. 58. _Cum sicut._ An. 1626, Bullar.
Roman. t. 5, p. 120.
[68] Grotius and others demonstrate the Greek language to
have been, in the first ages of Christianity, common
in Palestine; but this cannot be extended to all
the country people, as this passage and other proofs
clearly show. Hence Eusebius wrote his Acts of the
Martyrs of Palestine in Syro-Chaldaic, but abridged the
same in Greek, in the eighth book of his Church History.
[69] The old Latin Acts write his name Flavian, and some
Fabian, by mistaking the Syriac name, which is written
without vowels.
[70] Anglia Sacra, t. 1, p. 613, published by Wharton.
[71] Ibid. p. 606.
[72] Sozom. l. 3, c. 16.
[73] T. 3, p. 23.
[74] On this genuine work see Assemani, Op. t. 1, p. 119,
ib. Proleg, c. 1, et t. 2, p. 37. Item Biblioth. Orient.
t. 1, p. 141. The disciples of St. Ephrem committed
to writing this same history, as they had often heard
it from his mouth. Hence we have so many relations
of it. One formerly published by Gerard Vossius, is
republished by Assemani (t. 3, p. 23). But the most
complete account is that given us in the saint’s
confession, extant in the new Vatican edition.
[75] See Appendix on St. Ephrem’s Works, at the end of the
life.
[76] Serm. Ascetic. 1, p. 4.
[77] In encomio Basilij, t. 2.
[78] From his conversing with St. Basil by an interpreter
it is clear that St. Ephrem never understood the Greek
language. The old vicious translation of the life of
St. Basil, under the name of St. Amphilochius, pretends
that St. Basil obtained for him miraculously the
knowledge of the Greek tongue, and ordained him priest.
But this is a double mistake, though the latter was
admitted by Baillet. Saint Jerom, Palladius, and other
ancients always style him deacon, never priest. Nor
does Pseudo Amphilochius say, that St. Basil raised
St. Ephrem, but only his disciple and companion to the
priesthood, as the new translation of this piece, and an
attentive inspection of the original text, demonstrate.
[79] T. 4, b. 1, ed. Vaticanæ.
[80] Necrosima, can. 81, p. 335, t. 6.
[81] St. Ephrem in Testam. p. 286, 395, and St. Greg. Nyss.
p. 12.
[82] Testam. t. 2, p. 230, &c.
[83] Greg. M. Moral. l. 23, c. 21.
[84] Cant. ii. 12.
[85] John Oosterwican was director to a convent of nuns of
the same order in Gorcum; he was then very old, and
often prayed that God would honor him with the crown of
martyrdom.
The names of the eleven Franciscans were Nicholas
Pick, Jerom, a native of Werden, in the county of
Horn, Theodoric of Embden, native of Amorfort, Nicaise
Johnson, native of Heze, Wilhade, native of Denmark,
Godfrey of Merveille, Antony of the town of Werden,
Antony of Hornaire, a village near Gorcum, Francis
Rodes, native of Brussels. These were priests and
preachers. The other two were lay-brothers, namely,
Peter of Asca, a village in Brabant, and Cornelius of
Dorestate, a village now called Wick, in the territory
of Utrecht.--The three curates were Leonand Vechel,
Nicholas Poppel, and Godfrey Dunen. This last was
a native of Gorcum, who having been rector of the
university of Paris, where he had studied and taught,
was some time curate in Holland near the French
territories, but resigned his curacy and lived at
Gorcum.
The other martyrs were John Oosterwican mentioned
above; John, a Dominican of the province of Cologne,
curate of Hornaire; Adrian Hilvarenbeck, a Norbertin of
Middleburge, who served a parish at Munster, a village
near the mouth of the Meuse; James Lacop of the same
order and monastery, an assistant in a neighboring
parish to Munster; and Andrew Walter, a secular priest,
curate of Heinort, near Dort.
[86] Julij, t. 2, p. 823.
[87] De Canoniz. lib. iii. cap. 12.
[88] The reader will observe that this word is used in the
Saints’ writings in the sense of elevated, and almost
ecstatic, union with God, in prayer and contemplation.
[89] Pius VI. Decree approving the virtues of the Ven.
Veronica Giuliani. April, 1796.
[90] Ceillier and some others think this emperor to have been
M. Aurelius Antoninus Philosophus, who was a persecutor,
and reigned with Lucius Verus; the latter was absent
from Rome in the Parthian war from 162 to 166; on which
account, say these authors, he did not appear in this
trial. See Tillemont, t. 2, p. 326. But that these
martyrs suffered under Antoninus Pius, in the thirteenth
year of his reign, of Christ 150, we are assured by an
old inscription in several ancient MS. copies of their
acts mentioned by Ruinart. That this emperor put several
Christians to death whilst he was governor of Asia
before his accession to the empire, Tertullian testifies
(ad Scapul.). And that towards the end of his reign,
notwithstanding his former mildness towards them, he
again exercised the sword and torments on them, we
have an undoubted proof in the genuine epitaph of
St. Alexander, martyr, produced by Aringhi, Diss. 2,
l. 3, c. See Berti in Sæc. 2.
[91] Quæ in viduitate permanens Deo suam voverat castitatem.
Ruin. Act. Sincer. p. 21.
[92] Omnes qui non confitentur Christum verum esse Deum, in
ignem æternum mittentur. Ruin. p. 23.
[93] In Cyclum Pasch. p. 268.
[94] Nisibis was the Assyrian name of this city, which was
called by the Greeks Antiochia Mygdoniæ, from the river
Mygdon, on which it was situated, which gave name to the
territory. The ancient name of this city was Achar or
Achad, one of the seats of the empire of Nimrod. “He
reigned in Arach, that is, Edessa, and in Achad, now
called Nisibis,” says St. Jerom. (qu. in Gen. c. 10,
n. 10). St. Ephrem had made the same observation before
him. “He reigned in Arach, which is Edessa, and in Achar,
which is Nisibis, and in Calanne, which is Ctesiphon,
and in Rehebot, which is Adiab.” St. Ephrem, Comm. in
Gen. See Sim. Assemani, Bibl. Orient. t. 2, Diss. de
Monophysitis.
[95] Philoth. seu Hist. Relig. c. 1, p. 767.
[96] F. Cuper thinks the account of this event in Theodoret’s
Religious History to be an addition inserted from
other places, t. 4. Jul. in Comment. prævio ad Vitam,
S. Jacobi, n. 12 et 17.
[97] Philost. Hist. l. 3, c. 23.
[98] Chron. Alex. p. 287, S. Hieron. In Chron. and Theophan.
p. 28. See Le Beau, Hist. du Bas Empire, l. 6, n. 11,
t. 2, p. 22.
[99] Wisdom xvi. 9.
[100] Theodoret, Hist. Relig. in vit. S. Jacobi, et in Hist.
Eccl. l. 2. c. 30. Philost. l. 3, c. 32. Theophan. p. 33.
Chron. Alex. Zozim. l. 3. Zonar. t. 2, p. 44. Le Reau,
l. 7, p. 127, t. 2.
[101] Tillemont, Hist. des. Emp. t. 4, p. 674, places the
second siege of Nisibis to 346, and the third in 350.
But the dates above mentioned are more agreeable to
history, and adopted by the suffrage of most modern
critics.
[102] The two elder Assemani place the death of St. James in
338, soon after the first siege of Nisibis, of which
they understand the circumstances which are usually
ascribed to the second siege; for Theodoret confounds
them together, as Garnier, (in hunc Theodoreti locum),
Petau, (in Or. l. Juliani) Henricus Valesius, (in
Hist. Eccl.). Theodoret, Ammian. Marcell. l. 18. Pagi,
Tillemont, and others observe. Simon Assemani confirms
this chronology by the express testimony of the authors
of two Syriac Chronicles, that of Dionysius, patriarch
of the Jacobits, and that of Edessa. See Simon Assemani,
Biblio. Orient. t. 1, c. 5, p. 17, and Stephen Evodius
Assemani in Op. S. Ephrem, t. 1. But neither of
these Chronicles seems of sufficient authority to
counterbalance the testimony of the Greek historians,
and the circumstances that persuade us that St. James
survived the second siege of Nisibis, upon which
Tillemont, Ceillier, &c., place the death of St. James
in 350; and Cuper the Bollandist between the years 350
and 361, in which Constantius died.
[103] Ammian. Marcelli. l. 18, c. 7. Zonaras, t. 2, p. 20.
Monsignor Antonelli in vit. St. Jacobi, p. 26.
[104] See on him Galanus in parte 1. Historiali Concil.
Armen. cum Roman. p. 239, and F. James Villotte, S. J.
in serie Chronol. Patriarcharum Armeniæ, printed in
the end of his Latin-Armenian Dictionary.
[105] These are extant, addressed not to St. Gregory the
apostle of Armenia, surnamed the Illuminator, as some
copies have mistaken, but probably to his nephew,
another St. Gregory, who, being consecrated bishop
preached the faith in Albania, a province of Greater
Armenia, near the Caspian sea, where he was crowned
with martyrdom among the infidel barbarians in the
very country where Baronius places the Martyrdom of
the apostle St. Bartholomew. See Galanus, Hist. Eccl.
Armenorum, c. 5, et Not. ib. Also Antonelli, not. in
ep. S. Gregorii ad S. Jacobum Misib. p. 1.
[106] These eighteen discourses of St. James are mentioned by
Gennadius, who gives their titles, (t. 2, p. 901, Op.
S. Hier. Veron. an. 1735,) commended by St. Athanasius
(who calls them monuments of the simplicity and candor
of an apostolic mind. Ep. encyclic. ad episcopos
Egypti et Lybiæ) and by the Armenian writers quoted
by Antonelli, who demonstrates from the discourses
themselves that they are a work of the fourth century.
St. James, in the first, On Faith, demonstrates this
to be the foundation of our spiritual edifice, which
is raised upon it by hope and love, which render
the Christian soul the house and temple of God, the
ornaments of which are all good works, as fasting,
prayer, chastity, and all the fruits of the Holy Ghost.
He commends faith from the divine authority of Christ,
who everywhere requires it, from its indispensable
necessity, from the heroic virtues which it produces,
the eminent saints it has formed, and the miracles it
has wrought. The subject of his second discourse is
Charity, or the Love of God and our Neighbor, in which
the whole law of Christ is comprised, and which is the
most excellent of all virtues, and the perfection of
all sanctity, admirably taught by Christ both by word
and example; the end of all his doctrine, mysteries,
and sufferings being to plant his charity in our hearts.
In the third discourse he treats on fasting, universal
temperance, and self-denial, by which we subdue and
govern our senses and passions, die to ourselves, and
obtain all blessings of God, and the protection of the
angels, who are moved to assist and fight for us, as he
proves from examples and passages of holy writ (pp. 60,
61, 62). In his fourth he speaks on Prayer, on which he
delivers admirable maxims, teaching that its excellence
is derived from the purity, sanctity, and fervor of the
heart, upon which the fire descends from heaven, and
which glorifies God even by its silence. “But none,”
says he, “will be cleansed unless they have been washed
in the laver of baptism, and have received the body
and blood of Christ. For the blood is expiated by this
Blood, and the body cleansed by this Body. Be assiduous
in holy prayer, and in the beginning of all prayer
place that which our Lord hath taught us. When you pray,
always remember your friends, and me a sinner, &c.”
His fifth discourse, On War, is chiefly an invective
against pride, in vanquishing which consists our
main spiritual conflict. The sixth discourse is most
remarkable. The title is, On Devout Persons, that is,
Ascetes. The Armenian word _Ugdavor_ signifies one
who by vow has consecrated himself to God. From this
discourse it is manifest that some of these Ascetes
had devoted themselves to God in a state of continency
by vow, others only by a resolution. The saint most
pathetically exhorts them to fervor and watchfulness,
and excellently inculcates the obligation which every
Christian lies under of becoming a spiritual man formed
upon the image of Christ, the second Adam, in order
to rise with him to glory. He inveighs against some
Ascetes who kept under the same roof a woman Ascete
to serve them: a practice no less severely condemned
by St. Gregory Nazianzen (Carm. 3, p. 56, and Or. 43,
p. 701). St. Basil (Ep. 55, p. 149). St. Chrysostom,
the council of Nice, that of Ancyra, &c. St. James was
himself an Ascete from his youth, St. Gregory, to whom
he sends these discourses, was also one, and it is
clear from many passages in St. Gregory Nazianzen,
St. Basil, and others, that they were very numerous
in Cappadocia, Pontus, and Armenia before St. Basil
founded there the monastic life. See Antonelli’s note,
ib. p. 203. Saint James, in his seventh discourse, On
Penance, strongly exhorts sinners to confess speedily
their crimes; to conceal which through shame is final
impenitence. He adds, the priests cannot disclose
such a confession (p. 237). The infidels and several
heretics in the first ages of the Church denying the
general resurrection of bodies, St. James proves that
mystery in his eighth discourse, On the Resurrection
of the Dead. His ninth, On Humility, is an excellent
eulogium of that virtue, by which men are made the
children of God, and brethren of Christ; and it is
but justice in man, who is but dust. Its fruits are
innocence, simplicity, meekness, sweetness, charity,
patience, prudence, mercy, sincerity, compunction, and
peace. For he who loves humility is always blessed,
and enjoys constant peace; God, who dwelleth in the
meek and humble, abiding in him.
The tenth discourse, On Pastors, contains excellent
advice to a pastor of souls, especially on his
obligation of watching over and feeding his flock.
In the eleventh, On Circumcision, and in the twelfth,
On the Sabbath, he shows against the Jews, that those
laws no longer oblige, and that the Egyptians learned
circumcision from the Jews. In the thirteenth, On the
Choice of Meats, he proves none are unlawful of their
own nature. In the fourteenth, On the Passover, that
the Paschal solemnity of Christ’s resurrection has
abolished that Jewish festival: he adds that the
Christian, in honor of Christ’s crucifixion, keeps
every Friday, and also, at Nisibis, the fourteenth
day of every month. In the fifteenth he proves the
Reprobation of the Jews. In the sixteenth the Divinity
of the Son of God. In the seventeenth the Virtue of
holy Virginity, which both the Ascetes and the clergy
professed, and which he defends against the Jews
only; for he wrote before the heretics in the fourth
age calumniated the sanctity of that state. In the
eighteenth he confutes the Jews, who pretended that
their temple and synagogue would be again restored at
Jerusalem.
The long letter to the priests of Seleucia and
Ctesiphon against schisms, and dissensions, when Papas,
the haughty bishop of those cities, had raised there
a fatal schism, is in some MSS. ascribed to St. James;
but was certainly a synodal letter sent by a council
held on that occasion, nine years after the council of
Nice: on which see the life of St. Miles, and the notes
of the archbishop of Apamea, Evodius Assemani, ib.
Act. Mart. Orient. t. 1, p. 72, and Jos. Assemani Bibl.
Orient. t. 1, p. 86, &c.
Among the oriental liturgies, one in Chaldaic, formerly
in use among the Syrians, bears the name of St. James
of Nisibis. Gennadius mentions twenty-six books written
by this holy doctor in the Syriac tongue, all on pious
subjects, or on the Persian persecution. They were
never translated into Greek.
The letters of St. James and St. Gregory are published
by Assemani, Bibl. Orient. t. 1, p. 552, 632.
[107] Ps. xxxiii. 16, Prov. iii. 23, Zach. ii. 8, Gen. xv. 1,
Lev. xxxvi. 3.
[108] S. Chrys. Hom. 51, in Act. Hom. 15, in Rom. et 91, in
Matt.
[109] Ose. i. 2, Zach. xi. 9, Isa. v. 5.
[110] Amos ix. 4.
[111] Molanus in Auctario Martytol. Menard, in Martyr. Bened.
Bucelin, &c.
[112] Some have imagined that St. Hidulph was only
chorepiscopus or vicar, probably with episcopal orders,
for the administration of part of the diocess. But the
most judicious critics agree with the original writers
of his life, that he was himself archbishop of Triers.
[113] Sulpic. Sever. Dial. 1, c. 26, ol. 18, p. 94, ed. nov.
Veron. an. 1741.
[114] Heraclides ap. Cotel. Monum. Eccl. Gr. t. 3, p. 172.
See St. Chrys. contra oppugn. vitæ monast. t. 1. S. Gr.
Naz. St. Basil, &c.
[115] Among the heathen emperors of Rome, Titus, the two
Antonines, and Alexander deserved the best of their
subjects, and the three last gained a great reputation
for moral virtue. The Antonines were eminent for
their learning, and devoted themselves to the Stoic
philosophy. Arrius Antoninus, who had distinguished
himself by his moderation and love of justice in
several magistracies, was adopted by the emperor Adrian
in 138, and upon his death in the same year ascended
the imperial throne. He was truly the father of his
people during a reign of twenty-two years, and died
in 161, being seventy-seven years old. He obtained the
surname of Pius, according to some, by his gratitude to
Adrian; but, according to others, by his clemency and
goodness. He had often in his mouth the celebrated
saying of Scipio Africanus, that he would rather save
the life of one citizen than destroy one thousand
enemies. He engaged in no wars, except that by his
lieutenants he restrained the Daci, Alani, and Mauri,
and by the conduct of Lollius Urbicus quieted the
Britons, confining the Caledonians to their mountains
and forests by a new wall. Yet the pagan virtues of
this prince were mixed with an alloy of superstition,
vice, and weakness. When the senate refused to enrol
Adrian among the gods, out of a just detestation of
his cruelty and other vices, Antoninus, by tears and
entreaties, extorted from it a decree by which divine
honors were granted that infamous prince, and he
appointed priests and a temple for his worship. He
likewise caused his wife Faustina to be honored after
her death as a goddess, and was reproached for the most
dissolute life of his daughter Faustina the younger,
whom he gave in marriage to his adopted son, Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus.
Xiphilin writes that the Christians shared in the
mildness of his government. Yet though he did not raise
by fresh edicts any new persecution, it is a notorious
mistake of Dodwell and some others, who pretend that
no Christians suffered death for the faith during his
reign, at least by his order. Tertullian informs us
(l. ad Scapul. c. 4), that Arrius Antoninus, when he
was only proconsul of Asia, put in execution the old
unjust rescript of Trajan; and having punished some
Christians with death, dismissed the rest, crying out
to them, “O wretches, if you want to die, have you
not halters and precipices to end your lives by?” St.
Justin, in his first apology, which he addressed to
Antoninus Pius, who was then emperor, testifies that
Christians were tortured with the most barbarous
cruelty without having been convicted of any crime.
Also St. Irenæus (l. 3, c. 3), Eusebius (l. 4, c. 10),
and the author of an ancient poem which is published
among the works of Tertullian, are incontestible
vouchers that this emperor, whom Capitolinus calls a
most zealous worshipper of the gods, often shed the
blood of saints. By the acts of St. Felicitas and her
sons, it appears what artifices the pagan priests made
use of to stir up the emperors and magistrates against
the Christians. At length, however, Antoninus Pius,
in the fifteenth year of his reign, of Christ 152,
according to Tillemont, wrote to the states of Asia,
commanding that all persons who should be impeached
merely for believing in Christ, should be discharged,
and their accusers punished according to the laws
against informers, adding, “You do but harden them in
their opinion, for you cannot oblige them more than by
making them die for their religion. Thus they triumph
over you by choosing rather to die than to comply with
your will.” See Eusebius, l. 4, c. 26, where he also
mentions a like former rescript of Adrian to Minutius
Fundanus. Nevertheless, it is proved by Aringhi (Roma
Subterran. l. 3, c. 22), that some were crowned with
martyrdom in this reign after the aforesaid rescript,
the pusillanimous prince not having courage always to
protect these innocent subjects from the fury of the
populace or the malice of some governors.
[116] St. Minias was a Roman soldier who suffered martyrdom
at Florence under Decius. See Mart. Rom., 13 Oct.
[117] In Luc. l. 7, c. 13.
[118] Though Pliny and Procopius pretend that the Vandals
were of the same extraction with the Goths, the
contrary is demonstrated by the learned F. Daniel
Farlati (Illyrici Sacri, t. 2, p. 1308, Venetiis 1753),
and by Jos. Assemani (in Calend. de Orig. Slavor.
par. 2, c. 5, t. 1, p. 297). And their language,
manners, and religion, were entirely different. The
same arguments show that they differed also from the
Slavi, Huns, and original Winidi or Venedi, this last
being a Sarmatian, and the two others Scythian nations.
The Vandals are placed by Jornandes and Dio (l. 55)
on the German coast of the Baltic sea, in the present
Prussia and Pomerania; they thence extended themselves
to the sources of the Elbe, in the mountains of Silesia.
They were afterward removed near the Danube, in the
neighborhood of the Marcomanni, in the reigns of
Antoninus, Aurelian, and Probus. In the fifth century
they made an excursion into Gaul; and being there
repulsed, crossed the Pyrenæan mountains with the
Alani, who were the original Massagetæ from mount
Caucasus, and beyond the Tanais, as Ammianus
Marcellinus testifies. About the year 400, in the reign
of Honorius, the Alani settled themselves in Lusitania,
and the Vandals under king Gunderic, in Gallicia
(which then comprised both the present Gallicia and
Old Castile), and in Bætica, which from them was called
Vandalitia, and corruptly Andalusia. (See St. Isidore
and Idatius, in their chronicles, Salvian, l. 7,
p. 137, St. August. ep. 3, ad Victor.) The Vandals
were baptized in the Catholic faith about the time when
they crossed the Rhine; but were afterward drawn into
Arianism, probably by some alliance with the Arian
Goths, and out of hatred to the Romans. Idatius says,
that common fame attributed the Arian perversion of
the Vandals to king Genseric, who succeeded his brother
Gunderic in 428, and was a man experienced in all the
arts of policy and war. Count Boniface, lieutenant of
Africa, seeing his life threatened by Aëtius (who, with
the title of Magister Militiæ, governed the empire for
the empress Placidia, regent for her son Valentinian),
invited the Vandals out of Spain to his assistance.
Genseric, with a powerful army, passed the strait which
divides Africa from Spain, in May, 429, and though
Boniface was then returned to his duty, the barbarian
everywhere defeated the Romans, besieged Hippo during
fourteen months; and though he was obliged by a famine
to retire, he returned soon after and took that strong
fortress. The emperor Valentinian, in 435, by treaty
yielded up to him all his conquests in Africa. Genseric
soon broke the truce, and in 439 took Carthage, and
drove the Romans out of all Africa. In 455, being
invited by the Empress Eudoxia to revenge the murder
of Valentinian on Maximus, he plundered Rome during
fifteen days. Though that city had been ravaged by
Alaric the Goth in 400, whilst Honorius was emperor,
the Vandal found and carried off an immense booty;
and among other things, the gold and brass with which
the capitol was inlaid, and the vessels of the Jewish
temple at Jerusalem, which Titus had brought to Rome.
These Justinian, when he had recovered Africa, caused
to be brought to Constantinople, whence he caused
them to be removed and placed in certain churches at
Jerusalem, as Procopius relates. Rome was again twice
plundered by Totila, in 546 and 549. The Vandals, by
their transmigrations into Spain and Africa, soon after
ceased to be a nation in Germany, as Jornandes and
Procopius testify. Euricus, king of the Visigoths, in
Languedoc, in 468, invading Spain, conquered most of
the territories which the Romans still possessed there,
and all the provinces which the Vandals had seized.
So that by the extinction of the empire of the Vandals
in Africa under Justinian, the name of that potent and
furious nation was lost: though Frederic, the first
king of Prussia, in 1701, was for some time very
desirous rather to take the title of king of the
Vandals. The cavalry of the ancient Vandals fought
chiefly with the sword and lance, and were unpractised
in the distant combat. Their bowmen were undisciplined,
and fought on foot like the Gothic. See Procopius.
[119] Tinuzudæ tempore quo sacramenta Dei populo
porrigebantur, introeuntes cum furore (Ariani) Corpus
Christi et Sanguinem pavimento sparserunt, et illud
pollutis pedibus calcaverunt. St. Vict. Vitensis,
l. 1, p. 17.
[120] Qui nobis pœnitentiæ munus collaturi sunt, et
reconciliationis indulgentiâ obstrictos peccatorum
vinculis soluturi? A quibus divinis sacrificiis
ritus est exhibendus consuetus? Vobiscum et nos libeat
pergere, si liceret. S. Victor Vit. l. 2, p. 33.
[121] Scribam ego fratribus meis ut veniant coëpiscopi mei,
qui vobis nobiscum fidem communem nostram valeant
demonstrare, et præcipue ecclesia Romana, quæ caput
est omnium ecclesiarum. Victor Vit. l. 2, p. 38.
[122] In it the Catholics appealed to the tradition of the
universal Church. “Hæc est fides nostra; evangelicis
et apostolicis traditionibus atque auctoritate firmata,
et omnium quæ in mundo sunt Catholicarum ecclesiarum
societate fundata, in qua nos per gratiam Dei
omnipotentis permanere usque ad finem vitæ hujus
confidimus.” Victor Vit. l. 3, p. 62.
[123] L. 5, p. 76.
[124] Æneas, Gaz. Dial. de Animarum Immortaliiate et Corporis
Resurrectione, p. 415.
[125] Procop. de Bello Vandal. l. 1, c. 8.
[126] Hist. Franc. l. 2, p. 46.
[127] Ruin. Hist. Persec. Vandal. part. 2, c. 8, Notit. Afric.
[128] Hæc sunt linteamina quæ te accusabunt cum majestas
venerit judicantis. Vict. Vit. l. 5, c. 78.
[129] He closes this work by the following supplication to
the angels and saints: “Succor us, O angels of my God;
look down on Africa, once flourishing in its numerous
churches, but now left desolate and cast away.
Intercede, O patriarchs; pray, O holy prophets; succor
us, O apostles, who are our advocates. You, especially,
O blessed Peter, why are you silent in the necessities
of your flock? You, O blessed apostle Paul, behold
what the Arian Vandals do, and how your sons groan in
captivity. O all you holy apostles, petition for us.
Pray for us though wicked; Christ prayed even for his
persecutors,” &c. Adeste angeli Dei mei, et videte
Africam totam dudum tantarum ecclesiarum cuneis
fultam, nunc ab omnibus desolatam, sedentem viduam et
abjectam--Deprecamini patriarchæ; orate sancti prophetæ;
estote apostoli suffragatores ejus. Præcipue tu Petre,
quare siles pro ovibus tuis?--Tu S. Paule, gentium
magister, cognosce quid Vandali faciunt Ariani, et
filii tui gemunt lugendo captivi. Victor Vit. Hist.
Pers. Vandal. sub finem. The history of St. Victor
is written with spirit and correctness, in a plain
affecting style, intermixed with an entertaining
poignancy of satire, and edifying heroic sentiments
and examples of piety. The author is honored in the
Roman Martyrology among the holy confessors on the 23d
of August, though the time and place of his death are
uncertain. He flourished in the middle of the fifth
century. His history of the Vandalic persecution has
run through several editions: that of Beatus Rhenanus
at Basil in 1535, is the first: Peter Chifflet gave one
at Dijon in 1664: but that of Dom. Ruinart at Paris, in
1694, is the most complete. It was published in English
in 1605. The best French translation is that of Arnau
d’Andilly.
[130] L. de. Glor. Conf. c. 13.
[131] The Roman provinces, in Africa, soon after sunk again
into barbarism and infidelity, being overrun in 668
by the Saracens from Arabia and Syria, who in 669 took
also Syracusa, and established a kingdom in Sicily and
part of Italy. They planted themselves in Spain in 707.
Muhavia, a general of the Sultan Omar, having routed
Hormisdas Jesdegird, king of Persia, in 632, translated
that monarchy from the line of Artaxerxes to the
Saracens. This Omar conquered Egypt in 635. He was
second caliph after Mahomet, and successor of Abubeker;
and from his time the caliphs of Bagdat or Babylon
were masters of Syria, Persia, and Egypt, till the
two latter revolted; but notwithstanding various
revolutions, all those countries still retain the
Mahometan superstition. The Mahometans in Egypt shook
off the yoke of the caliphs of Bagdat, and set up
their own caliphs at Cairo in 870, to whom the Moors in
Africa adhered till the Turks became masters of Egypt.
[132] 2 Peter i. 9.
[133] S. Ambros. in Ps. 40.
[134] L. 3, de Virgin. See S. Aug. Serm., 38. de Temp.
[135] Hebr. x. 34, xi. 37.
[136] The exact number of years that some of the popes sat
before Victor in the year 200, cannot be determined with
any degree of certainty, partly on account of faults of
copies and the disagreement of later pontificals. (See
Pagi, the Bollandists, Tillemont, Orsi, Berti, &c.)
St. Peter sat twenty-five years; St. Linus seems
to have held the see about eleven years, St. Cletus
twelve years, St. Clement about eleven years, and St.
Anacletus nine, dying about the year 109. The tradition
and registers of the Roman church show Anacletus and
Cletus to have been two distinct popes, as is manifest
from the Liberian Calendar and several very ancient
lists of the first popes quoted by Schelstrate (Diss. 2,
Ant. Eccl. c. 2.) and the Bollandists (ad 26 Apr.) from
the old poem among the works of Tertullian, written
about the time that he lived; from the very ancient
Antiphonaries of the Vatican church, published by
cardinal Joseph Thomasius, and the old Martyrology
which bore the name of St. Jerom, and was printed at
Lucca by the care of Francis-Maria-Florentinius, a
gentleman of that city; which original authorities
were followed by Ado, Usuard, &c. The pontificals
call Cletus a Roman by birth, Anacletus a Grecian,
and native of Athens.
[137] Baillet in S. Bonav. Wadding, &c.
[138] Haymo, who had taught divinity at Paris, and been sent
by Gregory IX. nuncio to Constantinople, was employed
by the same pope in revising the Roman breviary and
its rubrics. He is not to be confounded with Haymo,
the disciple of Rabanus Maurus, afterward bishop of
Halberstadt, in the ninth age, whose Homilies, Comments
on the Scriptures, and Abridgment of Ecclesiastical
History are extant. His works are chiefly Centos,
compiled of scraps of fathers and other authors patched
and joined together; a manner of writing used by many
from the seventh to the twelfth age, but calculated to
propagate stupidity and dullness, and to contract, not
to enlarge or improve the genius, which is opened by
invention, elegance, and imitation; but fettered by
mechanical toils, as centos, acrostics, &c.
[139] Alexander of Hales, a native of Hales in
Gloucestershire, after having gone through the course
of his studies in England, went to Paris, and there
followed divinity and the canon law, and gained in them
an extraordinary reputation. He entered into the Order
of Friars Minors, and died at Paris in 1245. His works
discover a most subtle penetrating genius; of which the
principal is a Summ or Commentary upon the four Books
of the Master of the Sentences, written by order of
Innocent IV. and a Vumm of Virtues.
[140] Specul. Discipi. p. 1, c. 3.
[141] Gerson, Tr. De libris quos religiosi legere debent.
[142] Gerson, l. de Examine Doctrinar.
[143] See Du Pin, Biblioth. Cent. 13, p. 249, t. 14.
[144] Soliloqu. Exercit. 4, c. 1, 2.
[145] The psalter of the Blessed Virgin is falsely to scribed
to St. Bonaventure, and unworthy to bear his name. (see
Fabricius in Biblioth. med. ætat. Bellarmin and Labbe
de Script. Eccl. Nat. Alexander, Hist. Eccl. Sæc. 13.)
The Vatican edition of the works of St. Bonaventure was
begun by an order of Sixtus V. and completed in 1588.
It consists of eight volumes in folio. The two first
contain his commentaries on the holy scriptures: the
third his sermons and panegyrics: the fourth and fifth
his comments on the Master of the Sentences: the sixth,
seventh, and eighth, his lesser treatises, of which
some are doctrinal, others regard the duties of a
religious state, others general subjects of piety,
especially the mysteries of Christ and the Blessed
Virgin. Most of these have run through several separate
editions. All his works have been reprinted at Mentz
and Lyons; and in 4to. in fourteen volumes at Venice,
in 1751.
[146] B. Giles was a native of Assisio, and became the third
companion of St. Francis in 1209. He attended him
in the Marche of Ancona, and made a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem, whither he was sent by St. Francis to preach
to the Saracens; but upon their threats of raising a
persecution he was sent back to Italy by the Christians
of that country. He afterward lived some time at Rome,
some time at Reati, and some time at Fabriano; but the
chief part of the remainder of his life he spent at
Perugia, where he died in the night between the 22d
and the 23d of April, in the year 1272, not in 1262, as
Papebroke proves against the erroneous computation of
certain authors. (p. 220, t. 3, Apr.) Wading and others
relate many revelations, prophecies, and miracles of
this eminent servant of God; his tomb has been had in
public veneration at Perugia from the time of his death,
and he was for some time solemnly honored as a saint
in the church of his order in that city, as Papebroke
shows; who regrets that this devotion has been for
some time much abated, probably because not judged
sufficiently authorized by the holy see. The public
veneration at his tomb and the adjoining altar
continues, and the mass is sung, on account of his
ancient festival, with great solemnity, but of St.
George, without any solemn commemoration of this
servant of God. Nevertheless, from proofs of former
solemn veneration, Papebroke honors him with the title
of Blessed.
None among the first disciples of St. Francis seems to
have been more perfectly replenished with his spirit
of perfect charity, humility, meekness, and simplicity,
as appears from the golden maxims and lessons of piety
which he gave to others. Of these Papebroke has given
us a large and excellent collection from manuscripts:
some of which were before printed by Wading and others.
A few will suffice to show us his spirit.
B. Giles always lived by the labor of his hands. When
the cardinal bishop of Tusculum desired him always
to receive his bread as a poor man an alms, from his
table, B. Giles excused himself, using the words of the
psalmist: _Blessed art thou, and it shall be well with
thee, because thou shalt eat by the labor of thy hands._
Ps. cxxvii. “So brother Francis taught his brethren to
be faithful and diligent in laboring, and to take for
their wages not money, but necessary subsistence.”
(Papebroke, p. 224.) If any one discoursed with him
on the glory of God, the sweetness of his love, or
Paradise, he would be ravished in spirit, and remain so
great part of the day unmoved. Shepherds and children
who had learned this from others, sometimes for
diversion or out of curiosity, cried out after him,
Paradise, Paradise; upon hearing which, he through
joy fell into an ecstasy. His religious brethren in
conversing with him took care never to name the word
Paradise or Heaven for fear of losing his company by
his being ravished out of himself. (ib., p. 226, and
Wading.)
An extraordinary spiritual joy and cheerfulness
appeared always painted on his countenance; and if any
one spoke to him of God, he answered in great interior
jubilation of soul. Once returning to his brethren out
of close retirement, he praised God with wonderful joy
and fervor, and sung,--“Neither tongue can utter, nor
words express, nor mortal hearts conceive how great the
good is which God hath prepared for those who desire to
love him.”
Pope Gregory IX., who kept his court at Perugia from
1234 to autumn in 1236, sent one day for the holy man,
who, in answer to his holiness’s first question about
his state of life, said,--“I cheerfully take upon me
the yoke of the commandments of the Lord.” The pope
replied,--“Your answer is just; but your yoke is
sweet and your burthen light.” At these words B. Giles
withdrew a little from him, and, being ravished in
spirit, remained speechless and without motion till
very late in the night, to the great astonishment of
his holiness, who spoke of it to his cardinals and
others with great surprise.
This pope on a certain occasion pressed the holy man
to say something to him on his own duty; Giles after
having long endeavored to excuse himself said, “You
have two eyes, both a right and a left one, always
open; with the right eye you must contemplate the
things which are above you; and with the left eye you
must administer and dispense things which are below.”
On humility, the following maxims are recorded among
his sayings: “No man can attain to the knowledge of God
but by humility. The way to mount high is to descend;
for all dangers and all great falls which ever happened
in the world, were caused by pride, as is evident
in the angel in heaven, in Adam in Paradise, in the
Pharisee mentioned in the gospel; and all spiritual
advantages arose from humility, as we see in the
Blessed Virgin, the good thief, &c. Would to God some
great weight laid upon us obliged us always to hold
down our heads.” When a certain brother asked him;
“How can we fly this cursed pride?” he answered; “If we
consider the benefits of God, we must humble ourselves,
and bow down our heads. And if we consider our sins, we
must likewise humble ourselves, and bow down our heads.
Wo to him who seeks honor from his own confusion and
sin. The degrees of humility in a man are, that he know
that whatever is of his own growth is opposite to his
good. A branch of this humility is, that he give to
others what is theirs, and never appropriate to himself
what belongs to another; that is, that he ascribe to
God all his good and all advantages which he enjoys;
and acknowledge that all his evil is of his own growth.
Blessed is he who accounts himself as mean and base
before men as he is before God. Blessed is he who walks
faithfully in obedience to another. He who desires to
enjoy inward peace, must look upon every man as his
superior, and as better and greater before God. Blessed
is he who knows how to keep and conceal the favors
of God. Humility knows not how to speak, and patience
dares not speak, for fear of losing the crown of
suffering by complaints, in a firm conviction that a
person is always treated above his deserts. Humility
dispels all evil, is an enemy to all sin, and makes a
man nothing in his own eyes. By humility a man finds
grace before God, and peace with men. God bestows the
treasures of his grace on the humble, not on the proud.
A man ought always to fear from pride, lest it cast him
down headlong. Always fear and watch over yourself. A
man who deserves death, and who is in prison, how comes
it that he does not always tremble? A man is of himself
poverty and indigence; rich only by the divine gifts;
these then he must love, and despise himself. What is
greater than for a man to be sensible what he owes to
God, and to cover himself with confusion, self-reproach,
and self-reprehension for his own evils? I wish we
could have studied this lesson from the beginning of
the world to the end. How much do we stand indebted
to him who desires to deliver us from all evil, and to
confer upon us all good.” Against vain-glory he used to
say;--“If a person was sunk in extreme poverty, covered
all over with wounds, half-clad in tattered rags, and
without shoes; and men should come to him, and saluting
him with honor say: ‘All admire you, my lord; you are
wonderfully rich, handsome, and beautiful; and your
clothes are splendid and handsome;’ must not he have
lost his senses, who should be pleased with such a
compliment, or think himself such, knowing that he is
the very reverse?”
The servant of God was remarkable for his meekness and
charity, and he used to say, “We can appropriate to
ourselves our neighbor’s good, and make it also our own;
for the more a person rejoices at his neighbor’s good,
the more does he share in it. If therefore you desire
to share in the advantages of all others, rejoice more
for them all; and grieve for every one’s misfortunes.
This is the path of salvation, to rejoice in every
advantage and to grieve for every misfortune of
your neighbor; to see and acknowledge your evils and
miseries, and to believe only good of others; to honor
others, and despise yourself. We pray, fast, and labor;
yet lose all this if we do not bear injuries with
charity and patience. If we take so much pains to
attain to virtue, why do not we learn to do what is
so easy? you must bear the burdens of all, because
you have no just reason of complaint against any one,
seeing you deserve to be chastised and treated ill by
all creatures. You desire to escape reproaches and
condemnation in the next world, yet would be honored
in this. You refuse to labor or bear anything here, yet
desire to enjoy rest hereafter. Strive more earnestly
to vanquish your passions, and bear tribulations and
humiliations. It is necessary to overcome yourself,
whatever you do. It avails your soul little to draw
others to God unless you die to yourself.”
On prayer, which this servant of God made his constant
occupation and delight, he used to say,--“Prayer
is the beginning and the consummation of all good.
Every sinner must pray that God may make him know his
miseries and sins, and the divine benefits. He who
knows not how to pray, knows not God. All who are to
be saved, if they have attained the use of reason, must
set themselves to pray. Though a woman were ever so
bashful and simple, if she saw her only son taken from
her by the king’s orders for some crime, she would tear
her breasts, and implore his mercy. Her love and her
son’s extreme danger and miseries would make her never
want words to entreat him.”
The fruits and graces of perfect prayer he summed up
as follows: 1. “By it a man is enlightened in his
understanding. 2. He is strengthened in faith and in
the love of all good. 3. He learns to know and feel
his own miseries. 4. He is penetrated with holy fear,
is humble and contemptible in his own eyes. 5. His
heart is pierced with compunction. 6. Sweet tears
flow in abundance. 7. His heart is cleansed. 8. His
conscience purged. 9. He learns obedience. 10. Attains
to the perfect spirit of that virtue. 11. To spiritual
science. 12. To spiritual understanding. 13. Invincible
fortitude. 14. Patience. 15. Spiritual wisdom. 16. The
knowledge of God, who manifests himself to those who
adore him in spirit and truth. Hence love is kindled in
the soul, she runs in the odor of his sweet perfumes,
is drowned in the torrent of his sweetness, enjoys
perfect interior peace, and is brought to immortal
glory.”
[147] Vita B. Ægidii apud Papebroke, t. 3, Aprilis ad diem 23,
p. 236.
[148] Conc. t. 11, p. 237.
[149] The emperor Michael dying in 1283, his son Andronicus
renewed the schism, and restored the deposed patriarch
Joseph.
[150] Possevin. Apparatus sacer, t. 1, p. 245.
[151] Gerson calls St. Bonaventure both a cherub and a seraph,
because his writings both enlighten and inflame. His
order makes his doctrine the standard of their schools,
according to a decree of pope Pius V. To the works of
St. Bonaventure these divines add the double comments
of Scotius on Aristotle and the Master of the Sentences.
Peter Lombard, a native of Novara in Lombardy, was
recommended by St. Bernard (ep. 366) to Gilduin, first
abbot of the regular canons of St. Victor’s at Paris,
performed there his studies, professed that order, and
was one of those who, by an order of abbot Suger, king
Louis VII. and pope Eugenius III. in 1147, were sent
from St. Victor’s to St. Genevieve’s in place of the
secular canons. Eudes or Odo, one of this number, was
chosen first regular abbot of St. Genevieve’s, on whose
eminent virtues see the pious F. Gourdan, in his MS.
history of the eminent men of St. Victor’s, in 7 vols.
folio, t. 2, p. 281. Peter Lombard taught theology at
St. Genevieve’s, till in 1159 he was made bishop of
Paris. Gourdan, ib. t. 2, p. 79 and 80. He died, bishop
of that city, in 1164. He compiled a body of divinity,
collected from the writings of the fathers, into four
books, called Of the Sentences, from which he was
surnamed The Master of the Sentences. This work he is
said by some to have copied chiefly from the writings
of Blandinus his master, and others. (See James
Thomasius De Plagio literario, from sect. 493 to 502.)
Though it be not exempt from inaccuracies, the method
appeared so well adapted to the purposes of the
schoolmen that they followed the same and for their
lectures gave comments on these four books of the
Sentences. Among these, St. Thomas Aquinas stands
foremost. The divines of the Franciscan Order take
for their guides St. Bonaventure and John Duns Scotus.
This latter was born in Northumberland, and entered
young into the Order of St. Francis at Newcastle. He
performed his studies, and afterward taught divinity at
Oxford, where he wrote his Commentaries on the Master
of the Sentences, which were thence called his Oxonian
Commentaries. He was called to Paris about the year
1304, and in 1307 was appointed by his Order, Regent of
their theological schools in that University, where he
published his Reportata in Sententias, called his Paris
Commentaries, which are called by Dr. Cave a rough or
unfinished abstract of his Oxford Commentaries. For
the subtilty and quickness of his understanding, and
his penetrating genius, he was regarded as a prodigy.
Being sent by his Order to Cologne in 1308, he was
received by the whole city in procession, but died
on the 8th of November the same year, of an apoplexy,
being forty-three, or as others say, only thirty-four
years old. The fable of his being buried alive is
clearly confuted by Luke Wading, the learned Irish
Franciscan, who published his work, with notes,
in twelve tomes, printed at Lyons in 1636. Natalis
Alexander, a most impartial inquirer into this dispute,
and others, have also demonstrated that story to have
been a most groundless fiction. Wading, Colgan, &c.,
say that Duns Scotus was an Irishman, and born at Down
in Ulster. John Major, Dempster, and Trithemius say he
was a Scotchman, born at Duns, eight miles from England.
But Leland, Wharton, Cave, and Tanner, prove that
he was an Englishman and a native of Dunstone, by
contraction Duns, a village in Northumberland, in the
parish of Emildun, then belonging to Merton-hall in
Oxford, of which hall he was afterward a member. This
is attested in the end of several manuscript copies of
his Comments on the Sentences, written soon after the
time when he lived, and still shown at Oxford in the
colleges of Baliol and Merton. That he was a Scotchman
or an Irishman, no author seems to have asserted before
the sixteenth century, as Mr. Wharton observes. (See
Cave, t. 2, Append. p. 4. Wood, Athen. Oxon. Sir James
Ware de Script. Hibern. c. 10, p. 64. Tanner de Script.
Brit. V. Duns. Wading, in the life of Scotus, prefixed
to his works.)
William Ockham, a native of Surrey, also a Grey Friar,
a scholar of Duns Scotus at Paris, disagreeing from his
master in opinions, raised hot disputes in the schools,
and became the head or leader of the Nominals, a sect
among the schoolmen who in philosophy explain things
chiefly by the properties of terms; and maintain that
words, not things, are the object of dialectic, in
opposition to the others called Realists. Ockham
was provincial of his Order in England in 1322, and
according to Wood (Hist. et Ant. l. 2, p. 87) wrote
a book On the Poverty of Christ, and other treatises
against Pope John XXII., by whom he was excommunicated.
He became a warm abettor of the schism of Louis of
Bavaria, and his antipope, Peter Corbarius, and died
at Munich in 1347. He is said also to have favored
the heresy of the Fratricelli, introduced by certain
Grey Friars in the marquisate of Ancona, who made all
perfection to consist in a seeming poverty, rebelled
against the Church, and railed at the pope and the
other pastors. Flying into Germany, they were favored
by Louis of Bavaria, and in return supported his schism.
They at length rejected the sacraments as useless. Akin
to these were the Beguards and Beguines, an heretical
sect formed by several poor laymen and women, who, some
by an ill-governed devotion and a love of a lazy life,
others out of a spirit of libertinism, would needs
imitate the poverty of the Friars Mendicants, without
being tied to obedience, or living under superiors.
They at length fell into many extravagant errors, and
became a society of various notions and opinions, which
had nothing common but the hatred they bore to the pope
and other prelates, and the affectation of a voluntary
poverty, under which they covered an infinite number
of disorders and crimes. Such are the baneful fruits
of self-conceit.
[152] St. Bonav. Specul. Novit. p. 2, c. 2.
[153] Tit. de Aleatoribus tam in Digesto quam in Codice.
[154] See St. Bonav. in 4, dis. 14. St. Raymund. St. Antonin.
Comitolus, l. 3, 7, 9, p. 348, &c. Aristotle (l. 4,
Ethic. c. 1.) places gamesters in the same class with
highwaymen and plunderers. St. Bernardin of Sienna
(Serm. 33, Domin. 5, Quadrag. t. 4), says they are
worse then robbers, because more treacherous, and
covering their rapine under seducing glosses.
[155] Job ii. 4.
[156] On the methods of varying every day these acts, see
Polancus, De modo juvandi morientes; Joan. a S. Thoma.
Card. Bona. &c.
[157] Apoc. xii. 12.
[158] Cicat. l. 2, c. 1, p. 446.
[159] This observation of St. Camillus has been since
confirmed by many instances of persons who were found
to have been buried alive, or to have recovered long
after they had appeared to have been dead. Accounts of
several such examples are found in many modern medical
and philosophical memoirs of literature which have
appeared during this century, especially in France and
Germany; and experience evinces the case to have been
frequent. Boerhaave (Not. in Instit. Medic.) and some
other men whose names stand among the foremost in
the list of philosophers, have demonstrated by many
undoubted examples, that where the person is not dead,
an entire cessation of breathing and of the circulation
of the blood may happen for some time, by a total
obstruction in the organical movements of the springs
and fluids of the whole body, which obstruction
may sometimes be afterwards removed, and the vital
functions restored. Whence the soul is not to be
presumed to leave the body in the act of dying, but
at the moment in which some organ or part of the body
_absolutely_ essential to life is _irreparably_ decayed
or destroyed. Nor can any certain mark be given
that a person is dead till some evident symptom of
putrefaction commenced appears sensible.
Duran and some other eminent surgeons in France, in
memorials addressed, some to the French king, others to
the public, complain that two customs call for redress,
first, that of burying multitudes in the churches, by
which experience shows that the air is often extremely
infected; the second is that of which we speak. To
prevent the danger of this latter, these authors insist
that no corpse should be allowed to be buried, or
its face close covered, before some certain proof of
putrefaction, for which they assign as usually one of
the first marks, if the lower jaw being stirred does
not restore itself, the spring of the muscles being
lost by putrefaction. See Doctor Bruhier, Mémoire
présenté au Roi, sur la Nécessité d’un Règlement
Général au Sujet des Enterments et Embaumements, in
1745; also Dissertation sur l’Incertitude des Signes
de la Mort, in 1749, 2 vols. in 12mo.; and Dr. Louis,
Lettres sur la Certitude des Signes de la Mort, contre
Bruhier, in 1752, in 12mo.
The Romans usually kept the bodies of the dead eight
days, and practised a ceremony of often calling upon
them by their names, of which certain traces remain in
many places from the old ceremonial for the burial of
kings and princes. Servabantur cadavera octo diebus,
et calida abluebantur, et post ultimam conclamationem
abluebantur. Servius in Virgilii Æneidon, l. 8,
ver. 2, 8. The corpse was washed whilst warm, and again
after the last call addressed to the deceased person,
which was the close of the ceremony before the corpse
was burnt or interred; and to be deprived of it was
esteemed a great misfortune. Corpora nondum conclamata
jacent, Lucan. l. 2, ver. 22. Jam defletus et
conclamatus es. Apuleius, l. 1, Metam. et l. 11, ib.
Desine, jam conclamatum est. Terent. Eunuch. 2, 3,
ver. 56. St. Zeno of Verona, describing a wife who
immoderately laments her deceased husband, says:
Cadaver amplectitur conclamatum. St. Zeno, l. 1,
Trac. 16, p. 126, nov. ed. Veron. This ceremony,
trivial in itself, was of importance to ascertain
publicly the death of the person.
[160] The empire of the West, which had been extinguished
in Augustulus, was restored in the year 800, in the
person of Charlemagne, king of France, who extended
his conquests into part of Spain, almost all Italy, all
Flanders and Germany, and part of Hungary. The imperial
crown continued some time in the different branches of
his family, sometimes in France, sometimes in Germany,
and sometimes in both united under the same monarch.
Louis IV. the eighth hereditary emperor of the Franks,
was a weak prince, and died in the twentieth year of
his age, in 912, without leaving any issue. These
emperors, in imitation of the Lombards, had created
several petty sovereigns in their states, who grew
very powerful. These princes declared that by the death
of Louis IV. the imperial dignity was devolved on the
Germanic people; and excluding Charles the Simple, king
of France, the next heir in blood of the Carlovingian
race, elected Conrad I. duke of Franconi: and after him
Henry I. surnamed the Fowler, duke of Saxony, who was
succeeded by three Othos of the same family of Saxony.
After St. Henry II. several emperors (the following
Henries, and two Frederics in particular) were of the
Franconian family. Rodolph I. of the house of Austria
was chosen in 1273. There have been four dukes of
Bavaria emperors, five of the house of Luxemburg,
three of the old Bohemian royal house, &c. But in 1438,
Albert II. duke of Austria and marquis of Moravia, was
raised to that supreme dignity, which from that time
has remained chiefly in that family. The ancient ducal
house of Saxony was descended from Wittekind the Great,
the last elected king of the Saxons, who afterwards
sustained a long obstinate war against Pepin and
Charlemagne, submitted to the latter, and being
baptized by St. Lullus in 785, was created by
Charlemagne, first duke of Saxony. St. Henry II. was
the fifth Emperor of the Saxon race, descended from
Wittekind the Great.
[161] On the authenticity of this diploma of Henry II. and
also of those of Pepin, Charlemagne, and Otho I. see
the Dissertation of the Abbé Cenni, entitled, Esame de
Diploma d’Ottone è S. Arrigo, printed at Rome in 1754.
That the see of Rome was possessed of great riches,
even during the rage of the first persecutions, is
clear from the acts of universal charity performed
by the popes, mentioned by St. Dionysius of Corinth,
and after the persecutions by St. Basil and St. John
Climacus. From the reign of Constantine the Great, many
large possessions were bestowed on the popes for the
service of the Church. Conni (Esame di Diploma di
Ludovico Pio) shows in detail from St. Gregory the
Great’s epistles, that the Roman see, in his time,
enjoyed very large estates, with a very ample civil
jurisdiction, and a power of punishing delinquents in
them by deputy judges, in Sicily, Calabria, Apulia,
Campania, Ravenna, Sabina, Dalmatia, Illyricum,
Sardinia, Corsica, Liguria, the Alpes Cottiæ, and a
small estate in Gaul. Some of these estates comprised
several bishoprics, as appears from St. Gregory, l. 7,
ep. 39, Indict. ii.
The Alpes Cottiæ that belonged to the popes included
Genoa and the sea-coast from that town to the Alps,
the boundaries of Gaul, as Thomassin (l. 1, de Discipl.
Eccl. c. 27, n. 17.) takes notice, and as Baronius (ad
an. 712, p. 9.) proves from the testimony of Oldradus,
bishop of Milan. And Paul the deacon writes, that
the Lombards seized the Alpes Cottiæ, which were the
estates of the Roman see. “Patrimonium Alpium Cottiarum
quæ quondam ad jus pertinuerant apostolicæ sedis,
sed a Longobardis multo tempore fuerant ablatæ.” (Paul.
Diac. l. 6, c. 43.) Father Cajetan, in his Isagoge ad
Historiam Siculam, points out at length the different
estates which the Roman see formerly possessed in
Sicily. The popes were charged with a great share of
the care of the city and civil government of Rome. St.
Gregory the Great mentions that it was part of their
duty to provide that the city was supplied with corn,
(l. 5, ep. 40, alias l. 4, ep. 31, ad Maurit.) and that
he was obliged to watch against the stratagems of the
enemies, and the treachery of the Roman generals and
governors. (l. 5, ep. 42, alias l. 4, ep. 35.) And
he appointed Constantius a tribune to be governor of
Naples. (l. 2, ep. 11, alias ep. 7.) Anastasius the
Librarian testifies that the popes Sisinnius and
Gregory II. both repaired the walls of Rome and put
the city in a posture of defence.
From these and other facts Thomassin observes that the
popes had then the chief administration of the city
of Rome and of the exarchate, made treaties of peace,
averted wars, defended and recovered cities, and
repulsed the enemies. (Thomass. da Benefic. 3, part.
l. 1, c. 29, n. 6.) When the Lombards ravaged and
conquered the country, the emperors continued to
oppress the people with exorbitant taxes, yet being
busy at home against the Saracens, refused to protect
the Romans against the barbarians. Whereupon the people
of Italy, in the time of Gregory II. in 715, chose
themselves in many places leaders and princes, though
that pope exhorted them every where to remain in their
obedience and fidelity to the empire, as Anastasius the
Librarian assures us: “Ne desisterent ab amore et fide
Romani imperii admonebat.”
Leo the Isaurian, and his son Constantine Copronymus
persecuted the Catholics; yet Zachary and Stephen II.
paid them all due obedience and respect in matters
relating to the civil government. Leo threatened to
destroy the holy images and profane the relics of the
apostles at Rome. At which news the people of Rome were
not to be restrained, but having before received with
honor the images of that emperor, according to custom,
they, in a fit of sudden fury, pulled them down.
Pope Stephen II. exhorted the emperor to forbear such
sacrileges and persecutions, and at the same time
gave him to understand the danger of exasperating the
populace, though he did what in him lay to prevent
by entreaties both the profanations threatened by
the emperor, and also the revolt of the people: “Tunc
projecta laureata tua conculcarunt--Aisque: Romam
mittam, et imaginem S. Petri confringam.--Quòd si
quospiam miseris, protestamur, tibi, innocentes sumus
a sanguine quem fusuri sunt.” On the sacrileges and
cruelties exercised by the Iconoclasts in the East, see
the Bollandists, August ix. To prevent the like at Rome,
some of the Greek historians say that pope Gregory II.
withdrew himself and all Italy from the obedience of
the emperor. But Theophanes and the other Greeks were
in this particular certainly mistaken, as Thomassin
takes notice. And Natalis Alexander says: (Diss. 1,
sæc. 8.) “This most learned pope was not ignorant
of the tradition of the fathers from which he never
deviated. For the fathers always taught that subjects
are bound to obey their princes, though infidels or
heretics, in those things which belong to the rights
of the commonwealth.”
The case was, that when the emperors refused to protect
Italy from the barbarians, the popes in the name of
the people, who looked upon them as their fathers and
guardians, and as the head of the commonwealth, sought
protection from the French, as Thomassin observes
(p. 3, de Benef. l. 1, c. 29.) The continuator of
Fredegarius seems to say, that Gregory III. and the
Roman people created Charles Martel Patrician of Rome,
by which title was meant the protection of the Church
and poor, as De Marca (De Concordiâ, l. 3, c. 11,
n. 6.) and Pagi explain it from Paul the deacon. At
last pope Stephen II. going into France to invite Pepin
into Italy, conferred on him the title of Patrician,
but had not recourse to this expedient till the Eastern
empire had absolutely abandoned Italy to the swords of
the Lombards. Pope Zachary made a peace with Luitprand,
king of the Lombards, and afterward a truce with king
Rachis for twenty years. But that prince putting on the
Benedictin habit, his brother and successor Astulphus
broke the treaty. Stephen II. who succeeded Zachary in
752, sent great presents to Astulphus, begging he would
give peace to the exarchate; but could not be heard, as
Anastasius testifies. Whereupon Stephen went to Paris,
and implored the protection of king Pepin, who sent
ambassadors into Lombardy, requiring that Astulphus
would restore what he had taken from the church of
Rome, and repair the damages he had done the Romans.
Astulphus refusing to comply with these conditions,
Pepin led an army into Italy, defeated the Lombards,
and besieged, and took Astulphus in Pavia; but
generously restored him his kingdom on condition he
should live in amity with the pope. But immediately
after Pepin’s departure he perfidiously took up arms,
and in revenge put every thing to fire and sword in the
territories of Rome. This obliged Pepin to return into
Italy, and Astulphus was again beaten and made prisoner
in Pavia. Pepin once more restored him his kingdom, but
threatened him with death if he ever again took up arms
against the pope; and he took from him the exarchate of
Ravenna, of which the Lombard had made himself master,
and he gave it to the holy see in 755, as Eginhard
relates: “Redditam sibi Ravennam et Pentapolim, et
omnem exarchatum ad Ravennam pertinentem, ad S. Petrum
tradidit.” Eginhard, ib. Thomassin observes very justly
that Pepin could not give away dominions which belonged
to the emperors of Constantinople; but that they had
lost all right to them after they had suffered them to
be conquered by the Lombards, without sending succors
during so many years to defend and protect them. These
countries therefore either by the right of conquest
in a just war belonged to Pepin and Charlemagne, who
bestowed them on the popes; or the people became free,
and being abandoned to barbarians had a right to form
themselves into a new government. See Thomassin (p. 3,
de Beneficiis, l. 1, c. 29, n. 9).
It is a principle laid down by Puffendorf, Grotius,
Fontanini, and others, demonstrated by the unanimous
consent of all ancients and moderns, and founded upon
the law of nations, that he who conquers a country in
a just war, nowise untaken for the former possessors,
nor in alliance with them, is not bound to restore
to them what they would not or could not protect and
defend: “Illud extra controversiam est, si jus gentium
respiciamus, quæ hostibus per nos erepta sunt, ea
non posse vindicari ab his qui ante hostes nostros
ea possederant et amiserant.” (Grotius, l. 3, de Jure
belli et pacis, c. 6, 38.) The Greeks had by their
sloth lost the exarchate of Ravenna. If Pepin had
conquered the Goths in Italy, or the Vandals in Africa
before Justinian had recovered those dominions, who
will pretend that he would have been obliged to restore
them to the emperors? Or, if the Britons had repulsed
the Saxons after the Romans had abandoned them to their
fury, might they not have declared themselves a free
people? Or, had not the popes and the Roman people
a right, when the Greeks refused them protection, to
seek it from others? They had long in vain demanded
it of the emperors of Constantinople, before they had
recourse to the French. Thus Anastasius testifies that
pope Stephen II. had often in vain implored the succors
of Leo against Astulphus. “Ut juxta quod ei sæpius
scripserat, cum exercitu ad tuendas has Italiæ partes
modis omnibus adveniret.” The same Anastasius relates,
that when the ambassadors of the Greek emperor demanded
of Pepin the restitution of the countries he had
conquered from the Lombards, that prince answered,
that as he had exposed himself to the dangers of war
merely for the protection of St. Peter’s see, not in
favor of any other person, he never would suffer the
apostolic Church to be deprived of what he had bestowed
on it. Pepin gave to the holy see the city of Rome
and its Campagna; also the exarchate of Ravenna and
Pentapolis, comprising Rimini, Pesaro, Fano, Senigallia,
Ancona, Gubbio, &c. He retained the office of protector
and defender of the Roman church under the title of
Patrician. When Desiderius, king of the Lombards, again
ravaged the lands of the church of Rome, Charlemagne
marched into Italy, defeated his forces, and after a
long siege took Pavia, and extinguished the kingdom
of the Lombards in 773, on which occasion he caused
himself to be crowned king of Italy, with an iron crown,
such as the Goths and Lombards in that country had used,
perhaps as an emblem of strength. Charlemagne confirmed
to pope Adrian I. at Rome, the donation of his father
Pepin. The emperor Charles the Bald and others ratified
and extended the same. Charlemagne having been crowned
emperor of the West at Rome, by pope Leo III. in
800, Irene, who was then empress of Constantinople,
acknowledged him Augustus in 802; as did her successor
the emperor Nicephorus III. The Greeks at the same time
ratified the partition made of the Italian dominions.
This point of history has been so much misrepresented
by some moderns, that this note seemed necessary in
order to set it in a true light. See Cenni’s Monumenta
Dominationis Pontificiæ, in 4to. Romæ, 1760. Also
Orsi’s Dissertation on this subject; Cenni’s Esame di
Diploma, &c. and Jos. Assemani, Hist. Ital. Scriptores,
t. 3, c. 5.
[162] In the partition of the empire between Charlemagne and
Irene, empress of Constantinople, Apulia and Calabria
were assigned to the Eastern empire, and the rest of
Naples to Charlemagne and his successors. Long before
this, in the unhappy reign of the Monothelite emperor
Constans, about the year 660, the Saracens began to
infest Sicily, and soon after became masters of that
island, and also of Calabria and some other parts of
Italy. Otho I. surnamed the Great, drove them out of
Italy, and laid claim to Calabria and Apulia by right
of conquest. The Greeks soon after yielded up their
pretensions to those provinces by the marriage of
Otho II. to Theophania, daughter of Romanus, emperor of
the East, who brought him Apulia and Calabria for her
dowry. Yet the treacherous Greeks joined the Saracens
in those provinces, and again expelled the Germans. But
in 1008, Tancred, a noble Norman, lord of Hauteville,
with his twelve sons, and a gallant army of adventurers,
went from Normandy into Apulia, and had great success
against the Saracens and their confederates the Greeks.
From this time the Normans became dukes of Calabria,
and counts and dukes of Apulia. Robert Guiscard, the
most valiant Norman duke of Apulia, augmented his power
by the conquest of Sicily, Naples, and all the lands
which lie between that city and Latium or the territory
of Rome. In 1130, Roger the Norman was saluted by the
pope, king of both Sicilies.
[163] This Robert loved the Church, and was a wise,
courageous, and learned prince. He wrote sacred hymns,
and among others that which begins “O Constantia
Martyrum;” also, as some say the “Veni Sancte
Spiritus, Et emitte cœlitus” &c., sung in the mass
for Whitsuntide.
[164] At the entry of the cloister of St. Vanne at Verdun,
is hung a picture in which the emperor Saint Henry is
represented laying down his sceptre and crown, and
asking the monastic habit of the holy abbot Richard.
The abbot required of him a promise of obedience, then
commanded him to resume the government of the empire,
upon which a distich was made, in which it is said:
The emperor came hither to live in obedience; and he
practises this lesson by ruling.
[165] Baronius and some others call St. Henry the first
emperor of that name, because Henry I. or the Fowler,
was never crowned by the pope at Rome; without which
ceremony some Italians style an emperor only king of
Germany or emperor elect; though Charles V. was the
last that was so crowned at Rome. St. Henry on his
death-bed recommended to the princes Conrad the Salic,
duke of Franconia, who was accordingly chosen emperor,
was crowned at Rome in 1027, reigned with great piety
and glory, and was buried in the cathedral church at
Spire, which he had built near his own palace. He was
succeeded by his son Henry the Black or III.
[166] S. Fulgent, ep. 6.
[167] N. 11, p. 69.
[168] Critic. Hist. Chron. ad an. 734, n. 4.
[169] Our saint’s colleague St. Wiro (in Irish Bearaidhe) is
honored on the 8th of May. By the Four Masters he is
styled abbot of Dublin; but with the Irish annalists,
bishop and abbot are generally synonymous terms. He
died in 650. See Ware.
St. Plechelm’s other fellow-missionary, St. Otger,
is honored on the 10th of September; he is always
styled deacon, by which it appears that he was never
promoted to the priesthood. From his name and other
circumstances it is thought he was an English-Saxon,
though from the North, probably the southern parts
of Scotland anciently subject to the kings of the
Northumbers. Being desirous to accompany SS. Wiro and
Plechelm to Rome, and in their apostolic missions into
Germany, when Pepin gave the Mount of St. Peter or
of St. Odilia to St. Wiro, the three saints settled
there together and ended their days in that monastery.
Whether St. Otger outlived St. Plechelm is uncertain.
All three were buried in the monastery of Berg, or
of Mount St. Peter or St. Odilia; and their bodies
remained there till, in 858, that monastery was given
by king Lothaire to Hunger, bishop of Utrecht, when the
greatest part of these relics was translated to Utrecht.
Part still remained in the church of Berg, till with
the chapter of canons it was removed to Ruremund. These
relics were hid some time in the civil wars for fear
of the Calvinists, but discovered in 1594, and placed
again above the high altar. The portion at Utrecht
was also hid for a time for fear of the Normans; but
found and exposed to public veneration again by bishop
Baldric. See the life of Saint Otger, with notes by
Bollandus, and the additional disquisitions of Stilting
ad 10 Sept., t. 2, p. 612.
[170] The barbarians who inhabited the northern coasts of
the Baltic were called by one general name Normans;
and the Sclavi, Vandals, and divers other nations were
settled on the southern coast, as Eginhard, Helmold,
and others testify.
[171] The authorities produced by Tho. Rudburn, a monk of
the Old Monastery in Winchester, in 1450, to prove
St. Swithin to have been some time public professor
of divinity at Cambridge, are generally esteemed
suppositions. See Rudburn, l. 3, c. 2, Hist. Maj.
Wintoniensis, apud Wharton, Anglia Sacra, and the
History of the University of Cambridge.
[172] Hearne, Teat. Roffens, p. 269.
[173] See Ingulph. Asser. Redborne.
[174] The value of a mancuse is not known; it is thought to
have been about the same with that of a mark.
[175] Caslen and B. Nicholson falsely call this the life of
St. Swithin, and it appears from Leland that Lantfred
never wrote his life, which himself sufficiently
declares in the history of his miracles. The contrary
seems a mistake in Pits, Bale, and Thomas Rudburn,
p. 223. Rudburn manifestly confounds Wolstan with
Lantfred.
[176] Hist. Major Winton. p. 223. Vita metrice S. Swithuni
per Wolstanum monachum Winton. ib. 2.
[177] At the east end of this cathedral is the place which
in ancient times was esteemed most sacred, underneath
which was the cemetery or resting-place of many saints
and kings who were interred there with great honor.
At present behind the high altar there is a transverse
wall, against which we see the marks where several of
their statues, being very small, were placed with their
names under each pedestal in a row; “Kinglisus Rex. S.
Birinus Ep. Kingwald Rex. Egbertus R. Adulphus (_i. e._
Ethelwolphus) R. Elured R. filius ejus. Edwardus R.
junior Adhelstanus R. filius ejus (Sta. Maria D. Jesus
in the middle). Edredus R. Edgarus R. Alwynus Ep.
Ethelred R. Cnutus R. Hardecanutus R. filius ejus,” &c.
Underneath, upon a fillet were written these verses:
“Corpora Sanctorum hic sunt in pace sepulta;
Ex Meritis quorum fulgent miracula multa.”
At the foot of these, a little eastwards, is a large
flat grave-stone, which had the effigies of a bishop
in brass, said to be that of St. Swithin. See Lord
Clarendon, and Samuel Gale, On the Antiquities of
Winchester, p. 29, 30.
[178] Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, p. 346.
[179] Conc. Nicæn. Can. 15.
[180] That prelate had been educated at Cæsarea, where he
studied with St. Pamphilus the martyr, whose name he
afterward added to his own. He suffered imprisonment
with him for the faith about the year 309, but
recovered his liberty without undergoing any severer
trial, and was chosen archbishop of Cæsarea in 314.
When Arius, in 320, retired from Alexandria into
Palestine, having been deposed from the priesthood
by St. Alexander the year before, Eusebius of Cæsarea
and some other bishops were imposed upon by him,
and received him favorably. Hereupon Arius wrote to
Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom he calls brother to the
other Eusebius of Cæsarea. Eusebius of Nicomedia was
at that time of an advanced age, and had great interest
with Constantine, who after the defeat of Licinius kept
his court some time at Nicomedia as other emperors had
done before him since Dioclesian had begun to reside
in the East. This prelate was crafty and ambitious;
his removal, procured by his intrigues, from his
first see of Berytus to Nicomedia seems to have given
occasion to the canon of the Nicene council, by which
such translations were forbidden. Notwithstanding
which, in defiance of so sacred a law, he afterwards
procured himself to be again translated to the see
of Constantinople, in 338, in the beginning of the
reign of Constantius. The Council of Sardica, in 347,
confirmed the above-mentioned Nicene canon under pain
of the parties being deprived even of lay communion
at their death; but this arch-heretic died in 342.
He openly defended not only the person, but also the
errors of Arius; subscribed the definitions of the
Nicene council for fear of banishment: but three months
after, being the author of new tumults, he was banished
by Constantine, and after three years recalled, upon
giving a confession of faith in which he declared
himself penitent, and professed that he adhered to
the Nicene faith, as Theodoret relates. By this act
of dissimulation he imposed upon the emperor, but he
continued by every base art to support his heresy, and
endeavored to subvert the truth. Eusebius of Cæsarea
held that see from 314 till his death in 339. He was
always closely linked with the ringleaders of the
heresy. Nevertheless, the learned Henry Valois, in
his Prolegomena to his translation of this author’s
Ecclesiastical History, pretends to excuse him from
its errors, though he often boggled at the word
Consubstantial. He certainly was so far imposed upon by
Arius, as to believe that heretic admitted the eternity
of the Divine Word; and in his writings many passages
occur which prove the divinity, and, as to the sense,
the consubstantiality of the Son, whatever difficulties
he formed as to the word. On which account Ceillier
and many others affect to speak favorably, or at least
tenderly of Eusebius in this respect, and are willing
to believe that he did not at least constantly adhere
to that capital error. Yet it appears very difficult
entirely to clear him from it, though he may seem to
have attempted to steer a course between the tradition
of the Church and the novelties of his friends. See
Baronius ad an. 380, Witasse Nat. Alexander, and the
late Treatise in folio, against the Arian heresy,
complied by a Maurist Benedictin monk. Photius, in a
certain work given us by Montfaucon (in Bibl. Coisliana,
p. 358), roundly charges Eusebius with Arianism and
Origenism.
Eusebius, whose conduct was so unconstant and equivocal,
shines to most advantage in his works, especially those
which he composed in defence of Christianity before
the Arian contest arose. The first of these is his
book against Hierocles, who, under Dioclesian, was a
prosecuting judge at Nicomedia, and afterward rewarded
for his cruelty against the Christians with the
government of Egypt. In a book he wrote he made
Apollonius Tyanæus superior to Christ. But Eusebius
demonstrates the history of this magician, written
by Philostratus, when he taught rhetoric at Rome, one
hundred years after the death of that magician, to be
false and contradictory in most of its points, doubtful
in others, and trifling in all. About the time he was
made bishop he conceived a design of two works, which
showed as much the greatness of his genius, as the
execution did the extent of his knowledge. The first
of these he called The Preparation, the other The
Demonstration of the Gospel. In the first he, with
great erudition, confutes idolatry, in fifteen books,
showing that the Greeks borrowed the sciences and many
of their gods from the Egyptians, whose true history
agrees with that of Moses; but the fictions of their
theology are monstrous, impious, and condemned by their
own learned men; that their oracles, which were only
a chain of impostures and frauds, or the responses of
devils, never attained to any infallible knowledge of
contingencies, and were silenced by a power which they
acknowledged superior. He also shows the Unity of God,
and the truth of his revealed religion as ancient as
the world. In his Demonstration of the Gospel, in ten
books, he shows that the Jewish law in every point
clearly points out Christ and the gospel. These books
of Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration furnish
more proofs, testimonies and arguments for the truth
of the Christian religion than any other work of the
ancients on that subject.
Eusebius’s two books against Marcellus of Ancyra, and
three On Ecclesiastical Theology, are a confutation
of Sabellianism. His topography or alphabetical
explication of the places mentioned in the Old
Testament, is most exact and useful. It was translated
into Latin, and augmented by St. Jerom. Eusebius’s
useful comments on the Psalms were published by
Montfaucon (Collect. Nova Script. Græc. Paris, 1706).
His fourteen Discourses, or Opuscula, published by
F. Sirmond (Op. Sirmond, t. 1), are esteemed genuine,
though not mentioned by the ancients. His discourse
on the Dedication of the Church at Tyre, rebuilt after
the persecution in 315, contains a curious description
of that ceremony and of the structure. By his letter
to his Church of Cæsarea, after the conclusion of
the council of Nice, he recommended to his flock the
definitions and creed of that assembly. His panegyric
of Constantine was delivered at Constantinople in
presence of that prince, who then celebrated the
thirtieth year of his reign by public games. The
praises are chiefly drawn from the destruction of
idolatry; but study reigns in this composition more
than nature, and renders the discourse tedious, though
the author took some pains to polish the style. His
four books of the life of Constantine were written in
338, the year after that emperor’s death. The style
is diffusive, and the more disagreeable by being more
labored. Phocius reproaches the author for dissembling
or suppressing the chief circumstances relating to
Arius, and his condemnation in the council of Nice.
The Chronicle of Eusebius was a work of immense
labor, in two parts; the first, called his Chronology,
contained the distinct successions of the kings and
rulers of the principal nations from the beginning of
the world; the second part, called the Chronicle or the
Rule of Times, may be called the table of the first,
and unites all the particular chronologies of different
nations in one. The second part was translated into
Latin, and augmented by St. Jerom. The first part
was lost when Joseph Scaliger gathered the scattered
fragments from George Syncellus, Cedrenus, and the
Alexandrian chronicle; but Scaliger ought to have
pointed out his sources; and has inserted many things
which certainly belong not to Eusebius.
Our author’s name has been rendered most famous by his
ten books of Church History, which he brings down to
the defeat of Licinius, in 323, when he first wrote it,
though he revised it again in 326. He collected the
Acts of the martyrs of Palestine, an abstract of which
he added to the eighth book of his History. Rufinus
elegantly translated this work into Latin, reduced to
nine books, to which he added two others, wherein he
brings down his history to the death of Theodosius.
Eusebius copied very much Julius Africanus in his
chronicle; and in his History, St. Hegesippos (who had
compiled a History from Christ to 170) and others. This
invaluable work is not exempt from some mistakes and
capital omissions; nor was the author much acquainted
with the affairs of the Western Church. See Ceillier,
t. 4, p. 258, &c. Christophorson, bishop of Chichester,
elegantly translated this History into Latin, but
changed the manner of dividing the chapters. The
translation of the learned Henry Valesius is most
accurate. Eusebius was one of the most learned prelates
of antiquity, and a man of universal reading; but he
did not much study to polish his discourses, which is
the common fault of those that make learning and
knowledge their chief business.
[181] Theodoret, l. 1, c. 20, 21. S. Hier., l. 3, in Rufin.,
&c.
[182] Eus., l. 4, de Vit. Constant., c. 61, p. 518.
[183] Sozom., l. 2, c. 19, p. 469.
[184] See Tillemont, Ceillier, Cave, Hist. Littér., p. 187,
t. 1, and Solier, the Bollandist, Hist. Patr. Ant.
c. 24, p. 36.
[185] Theodoret, l. 1, c. 20. Theodorus Lector, l. 2, c. 1,
p. 547. Theophanes, p. 114. See Tillem, note 4, p. 653.