loud sounding trumpet, and says he was the first who
employed his pen against the Arians. The same father
admires the extent of his knowledge, saying that it
was consummate both in sacred and profane learning
(ep. 84, p. 327). His just praises are set forth by
St. Chrysostom in an entire panegyric; and Sozomen
assures us (l. 1, c. 2) that he was universally admired
both for the sanctity of his life, and the eloquence
of his discourses. The elegant works which he composed
against the Arians were famous in the fifth century,
but have not reached us. But we have still his Treatise
on the Pythonissa or Witch of Endor, published by Leo
Allatius, with a curious Dissertation, and reprinted in
the eighth tome of the Critici Sacri. In it the author
undertakes to prove against Origen that this witch
neither did nor could call up the soul of Samuel,
but only a spectre or devil representing Samuel, in
order to deceive Saul. He clearly teaches that before
the coming of Christ the souls of the just rested
in Abraham’s bosom; and that none could enter heaven
before Christ had opened it; but that Christians enjoy
an advantage above the patriarchs and prophets, in
being united with Christ immediately after their death
if they have lived well. This treatise is well written,
and justifies the commendations which the ancients
give to this great prelate and eloquent orator. Sozomen
justly calls his writings admirable, as well for the
purity of his style as for the sublimity of thought,
the beauty of the expression, or the curious choice
of the matter. Nothing more enhances his virtue, than
the invincible constancy and patience with which he
suffered the most reproachful accusation with which
his enemies charged him, and the unjust deposition and
banishment which were inflicted on him.
[187] Gr. 22, p. 548.
[188] “Qui sunt libri quos adoratis, legentes? Speratus
respondit: Quatuor evangelia Domini nostri Jesu Christi,
et epistolas S. Pauli apostoli, et omnem divinitus
inspiratam scripturam.” Acta apud Ruinart, p. 78, et
Baron. ad an. 202.
[189] “Consummati sunt Christi martyres mense Julio, et
intercedunt pro nobis ad Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum,
cui honor et gloria cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto in
sæcula sæculorum.” Acta apud Baronium, ad an. 202.
[190] Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus is commonly
known by the last name. His father was a centurion in
the proconsular troops of Africa, and he was born at
Carthage about the year 160. He confesses that before
his conversion to the Christian faith he, in his merry
fits, pointed his keenest satire against it (Apol.,
c. 18), had been an adulterer (De Resur. c. 59), had
taken a cruel pleasure in the bloody entertainments
of the amphitheatre (De Spectac. c. 19), attained to
a distinguishing eminency in vice (De Pœnit. c. 4),
“Ego præstantiam in delictis meam agnosco,” and was
an accomplished sinner in all respects, (ib. c. 12.
“Peccator omnium notarum cum sim,”) yet having his
head marvellously well turned for science, he applied
himself from his cradle to the study of every branch of
good literature, poetry, philosophy, geometry, physic,
and oratory; he dived into the principles of each
sect, and both into the fabulous and into the real or
historical part of mythology. His comprehensive genius
led him through the whole circle of profane sciences;
above the rest, as Eusebius tells us, he was profoundly
versed in the Roman laws. He had a surprising vivacity
and keenness of wit, and an uncommon stock of natural
fire which rendered him exceeding hot and impatient,
as himself complains (l. de Patient. in init.) His
other passions he restrained after his conversion to
Christianity; but this vehemence of temper he seems
never to have sufficiently checked. The motives which
engaged him to embrace the gospel seem those upon
which he most triumphantly insists in his works; as the
antiquity of the Mosaic writings, the mighty works and
wisdom of the divine lawgiver, the continued chain of
prophecy and wonders conducting the attentive inquirer
to Christ, the evidence of the miracles of Christ and
his apostles, the excellency of the law of the gospel,
and its amazing influence upon the lives of men;
the power which every Christian then exercised over
evil spirits, and the testimony of the very devils
themselves whom the infidels worshipped for gods, and
who turned preachers of Christ, howling, and confessing
themselves devils in the presence of their own votaries,
(Apol. c. 19, 20, 23, &c. &c.) also the constancy and
patience of the martyrs (l. ad Scapul. c. ult.) &c.
Being by his lively and comprehensive genius
excellently formed for controversy, he immediately
set himself to write in defence of religion, which was
then attacked by the Heathens and Jews on one side,
and on the other corrupted by heretics. He successfully
employed his pen against all these enemies to truth,
and first against the Pagans. The persecution which
began to rage gave occasion to his Apologetic, which
is not only his masterpiece, but indisputably one of
the best among all the works of Christian antiquity.
This piece was not addressed to the Roman senate,
as Baronius and several others thought, but to the
proconsul and other magistrates of Africa, and perhaps
to all the governors of provinces and magistrates
of the empire, among whom he might also comprise the
Roman senators; for the title of Presidents only,
agreed to these provincial governors, and he names the
proconsuls; (ch. 45) speaks of Rome as at a distance:
(c. 9, 21, 24, 35, 45) says they practised at home (at
Carthage), the bloody religious rites of the Scythians;
(c. 9) and by those words, “in ipso fere vertice
civitatis præsidentes,” he seems to mean the _Byrsa_
of Carthage; certainly not Rome, which he always calls
_Urbs_, not _civitas_.
In the first part of this work he clears Christians
from the calumnies of incest and murder thrown upon
them, and demonstrates the injustice of punishing
them merely for a name, and exposes the absurdity
of Trajan’s order commanding them to be punished if
impeached, yet not to be sought after. He mentions
that Tiberius, and after his miraculous victory, Marcus
Aurelius, were favorable to the Christian religion.
He then proceeds to confute idolatry; asks, if Bacchus
was made a god for planting vines, why did not Lucullus
attain to the same honor, because he first brought
cherry-trees from Pontus to Rome? Why Aristides the
Just, Socrates, Crœsus, Demosthenes, and so many others
who had been most eminent, were not admitted to share
divine honors with Jupiter, Venus, &c.? He explains
the chief articles of our faith, and speaking of the
origin and false worship of the demons he inserts
the most daring challenge, which Saint Cyprian (ep.
ad Demetrianum), Lactantius (De Just. l. 5, c. 21)
and other primitive fathers repeat with the same
assurance,--“Let a demoniac be brought into court,”
says Tertullian, “and the evil spirit that possesses
him be commanded by any Christian to declare what he is,
he shall confess himself as truly to be a devil as he
did falsely before declare himself a god. In like manner
let them bring any of those who are thought to be
inspired by some god, as Æsculapius, &c. If all these
do not declare themselves in court to be devils, not
daring to lie to a Christian, do you instantly put that
rash Christian to death.”
The apologist mentions the submission of Christians to
the emperors, their love of their enemies, and their
mutual charity, horror of all vice, and constancy in
suffering death and all manner of torments for the
sake of virtue. The heathens called them in derision
Sarmentitians and Semaxians, because they were fastened
to trunks of trees, and stuck about with faggots to
be set on fire. But Tertullian answers them: “Thus
dressed about with fire, we are in our most illustrious
apparel. These are our triumphal robes embroidered
with palm-branches in token of victory (such the Roman
generals wore in their solemn triumphs), and mounted
upon the pile we look upon ourselves as in our
triumphal chariot. Who ever looked well into our
religion but he came over to it? and who ever came over
to it but was ready to suffer for it? We thank you for
condemning us, because there is such a blessed discord
between the divine and human judgment, that when you
condemn us upon earth, God absolveth us in heaven.”
Tertullian wrote about the same time his two books
Against the Gentiles, in the first confuting their
slanders, in the second attacking their false gods.
An accidental disputation of a Christian with a Jewish
proselyte engaged him to show the triumph of the
faith over that obstinate race, who seemed deaf to all
arguments. His book Against the Jews is just, solid,
and well supported, a model of theological controversy,
which wants but a little clearness of diction to be a
very finished piece. Hermogenes, a Stoic philosopher,
and a Christian, broached a new heresy in Africa,
teaching matter to be eternal. Tertullian shows it to
have been created by God with the world, and unravels
the sophistry of that heresiarch in its book Against
Hermogenes. That Against the Valentinians is rather a
satire and raillery, than a serious confutation of the
extravagant sentiments of those heretics. His excellent
book Of Prescription against Heretics was certainly
written before his fall; for in it he lays great stress
on his communion with all the apostolic churches,
especially that of Rome, and confutes by general
principles all heresies that can arise.
His design in this little treatise is to show, that
the appeal to scripture is very unjust in heretics,
who have no claim or title to the scriptures. These
were carefully committed in trust by the apostles
to their successors, and he proves, that to whom the
scriptures were intrusted, to them also was committed
the interpretation of scripture. He promises that
heresies are the very pest and destruction of faith,
but no just cause of scandal or wonder, any more than
fevers which consume the human body; for they were
predicted by Christ, and the necessary consequence
of criminal passions. He says, as if it had been to
anticipate or remove the offence which he afterward
gave by his fall: “What if a bishop, a deacon, a widow,
a virgin, a teacher, or even a martyr, shall fall from
the faith;--Do we judge of the faith by the persons or
of persons by their faith? No man is wise who holds not
the faith.” (c. 3.) He says: “We have no need of a nice
inquiry after we have found Christ, or of any curious
search after we have learned the gospel. If we believe
we desire nothing further than to be believers.”
(c. 7.) He adds, some heretics inculcate as a good
reason for eternal scruple and searching, that it is
written: _Seek and ye shall find_. But he takes notice
those words only belonged to those Jews who had not yet
found Christ, and cannot mean, that we must for ever
seek on. But if we are to seek, it must not be from
heretics who are estranged from the truth, who have
no power to instruct, no inclination but to destroy,
and whose very light is darkness. Christ laid down a
rule of faith, about which there can be no cavils,
no disputes but what are raised by heretics; and an
obstinate opposition to this rule is what constitutes
a heretic.
He inveighs against too curious searches in faith, as
the source of heresies. Then coming close to the point,
he will not have heretics admitted to dispute about the
scriptures, to which they have no claim; and in such a
scriptural disputation, the victory is precarious and
very liable to uncertainty. All then is to be resolved
into what the apostles have taught; which apostolical
tradition is the demonstration of the truth, and the
confutation of all error and heretical innovation. Our
perfect agreement, and general consent and harmony with
the apostolic churches which live in the unity of the
same faith, is the most convincing proof of the truth,
against which no just objection can possibly be formed.
(c. 21, 22.) He urges that Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus,
and Hermogenes were of too modern a date, and proved
by their separation and pretended claim of what was
ancient, that the Church was before them; they ought
therefore to say, that Christ came down again from
heaven and taught again upon earth, before they can
commence apostles. “But,” says he, “if any of these
heretics have the confidence to put in their claim
to apostolic antiquity, let them show us the original
of their churches, the order and succession of their
bishops, so as to ascend up to an apostle,” &c. He is
for having the heretics prove their mission by miracles,
like the apostles. (c. 35.) He writes: “To these men
the Church might thus fitly address herself: Who are
ye? When, and from whence came ye? What do ye in my
pastures, who are none of mine? By what authority do
you, Marcion, break in upon my enclosures? Whence,
O Apelles, is your power to remove my land-marks?
This field is mine of right, why then do you at your
pleasure sow and feed therein? It is my possession; I
held it in times past; I first had it in my hands; my
title to it is firm and indisputable, and derived from
those persons whose it was, and to whom it properly
belonged; I am the heir of the apostles; as they
provided in their testament, as they committed and
delivered to my trust, as they charged and ordered me,
so I hold.” (c. 37.) He takes notice that in the Pagan
superstitions the devil had imitated many ceremonies
both of the Jewish and Christian religion; and
that heretics in like manner were bad copies of the
true Church. (c. 40.) He appeals to the manners and
conversation of the heretics which are vain, earthly,
without weight, without discipline, in every respect
suitable to the faith they profess. (c. 41, 43.) “I
am very much mistaken,” says he, “if they are governed
by any rules, even of their own making, since every
one models and adopts the doctrine he has received
according to his fancy, as the first founder framed
them to his, and to serve his own turn. The progress of
every heresy was formed upon the footsteps of its first
introducers; and the same liberty that was assumed
by Valentinus and Marcion, was generally made use of
by their followers. If you search into all sorts of
heresies, you will find that they differ in many things
from the first authors of their own sect. They have few
of them in any Church; but without mother, without see,
without the faith, they wander up and down like exiled
men, entirely devoid of house and home.” (c. 42.)
Among his other works, the most useful is the book On
Penance, the best polished of all his writings; in the
first part, he treats of repentance at baptism; in the
second, on that for sins committed after baptism. He
teaches here that the Church hath power to remit even
fornication, which he denied when a Montanist. He
insists much on the laborious exercises of this penance
after baptism.
A book On Prayer, explaining in the first part the
Lord’s Prayer; in the second, several ceremonies often
used at prayer. An exhortation to Patience, in which
the motives are displayed with great eloquence. An
exhortation to Martyrdom, than which nothing can be
more pathetic.
He wrote a book On Baptism, proving in the first part,
its obligation and necessity; in the second, treating
on several points of discipline relating to that
sacrament.
As to his other works, in his first book to his Wife,
written probably before he was priest (see Ceillier,
p. 375, and 391), he exhorts her not to marry again,
if she should survive him; and mentions several in the
Church living in perpetual continency. In the second,
he allows second marriages lawful, but if the woman be
determined to engage a second time in the married state,
insists that it is unlawful to marry an infidel. He
alleges the impossibility of rising to prayer at night,
giving suitable alms, visiting the martyrs, &c. with
a pagan husband: “Can you conceal yourself from him,”
says he, “when you make the sign of the cross upon your
bed or your body?--Will he not know what you receive
in secret, before you take any food?” that is, the
eucharist, (l. 2, c. 5.) He concludes with an amiable
description of a Christian holy marriage: “The Church,”
saith he, “approves the contract, the oblation ratifies
it, the blessing is the seal of it, and the angels
carry it to the heavenly Father who confirms it. Two
bear together the same yoke, and are but one flesh, and
one mind: they pray together, fast together, mutually
exhort each other, go together to the church, and
to the table of the Lord. They conceal nothing from
each other, visit the sick, collect alms without
restraint, assist at the offices of the Church without
interruption, sing psalms and hymns together, and
encourage each other to praise God.”
In his treatise On the Shows, he represents them as
occasions of idolatry, impurity, vanity, and other
vices, and mentions a woman who, going to the theatre,
returned back possessed with a devil: when the exorcist
reproached the evil spirit for daring to attack one of
the faithful, it boldly answered: “I found her in my
own house.” In his book On Idolatry, he determines
many cases of conscience, relating to idolatry, as
that it is not lawful to make idols, &c., but he says,
a Christian servant may attend his master to a temple:
any friend may assist at an idolater’s marriage, &c.
In two books On the Ornaments or Dress of Women, he
zealously recommends modesty in attire, and condemns
their use of paint. In that On veiling Virgins, he
undertakes to prove that young women ought to cover
their faces at church, contrary to the custom of his
country, where only married women were veiled. In that
On the Testimony of the Soul, he proves that there is
only one God from the natural testimony of every one’s
soul. In his Scorpiace, written against the poison
of the Scorpions, that is, Gnostics, especially a
branch of those heretics named Cainites, he proves
the necessity of martyrdom, which they denied. In his
Exhortation to Chastity, he dissuades a certain widow
from a second marriage, which he allows to be lawful,
though hardly so; and the harshness of his expressions
show that he then leaned toward Montanism.
Tertullian was a priest, and continued in the Church
till the middle of his life, that is, to forty or
upwards, when he miserably fell. Montanus, an eunuch
in Phrygia, set up for a prophet, and was wonderfully
agitated by an evil spirit, and pretended to raptures
in which he lost his senses, and spoke incoherently,
not like St. Quadratus and other true prophets. He
was joined by Prisca, or Priscilla, and Maximilla,
two women of quality, and rich, but of most debauched
lives. These had the like pretended raptures, and many
were deceived by them. Montanus, about the year 171,
pretended that he had received the Holy Ghost to
complete the law of the gospel, and was called by
his followers the Paraclete. Affecting a severity of
doctrine, to which his manners did not correspond, he
condemned second marriages, and flight in persecution,
and ordered extraordinary fasts. The Montanists said
that, beside the fast of Lent observed by the Catholics,
there were other fasts imposed by the Divine Spirit.
They kept three Lents in the year, each of two weeks,
and upon dry meats, as necessary injunctions of the
Spirit by the new revelations made to Montanus, which
they preferred to the writings of the apostles; and
they said these laws were to be observed for ever.
(See Tert. de Jejun. c. 15, also St. Jerom, ep. 54,
ad Marcellam, et in Aggæ, c. 1), which is the reason
why the Montanists, even in the time of Sozomen, kept
their Antepaschal fast confined to two weeks, which the
Catholics at that time certainly observed of forty days.
For, as bishop Hooper (of Lent, p. 65), remarks, those
great fasters would hardly have been left behind, had
they not been restrained by the pretended institution
of the Spirit, to which they punctually kept; and
this circumstance rendered these facts superstitious.
Pepuzium, a town in Phrygia, was the metropolis of
these heretics, who called it Jerusalem. The bishops
of Asia having examined their prophecies and errors,
condemned them. It is said, that Montanus and Maximilla
going mad, hanged themselves. See Eusebius.
Tertullian’s harsh, severe disposition fell in with
this rigidness. His vehement temper was for no medium
in any thing; and failing first by pride, he resented
some affronts which he imagined he had received from
the clergy of Rome, as Saint Jerom testifies; and in
this passion deserted the Church, forgetting the maxims
by which he had confuted all heresies. Solomon’s fall
did not prejudice his former inspired writings. Nor
does the misfortune of Tertullian destroy at least the
justness of the reasoning in what he had written in
defence of the truth, any more than if a man lost his
senses, this unlucky accident could annul what he had
formerly done for the advancement of learning.
Tertullian is the most ancient of all ecclesiastical
writers among the Latins. St. Vincent of Lerins, who is
far from shading the blemishes of this great man, says,
“He was among the Latins what Origen was among the
Greeks--that is, the first man of his age. Every word
seems a sentence, and almost every sentence a new
victory. Yet with all these advantages, he did not
continue in the ancient and universal faith. His error,
as the blessed confessor Hilary observes, has taken
away that authority from his writings which they
would have otherwise deserved.” St. Jerom in his book
against Helvidius, when his authority was objected,
coolly answered, “That he is not of the Church,”
“Ecclesiæ hominem non esse.” Yet he sometimes speaks
advantageously of his learning. Lactantius calls his
style uncouth, rugged, and dark, but admires his depth
of sense; and he who breaks the shell will not repent
his pains for the kernel. Balsac ingeniously compares
his eloquence to ebony, which is bright and pleasing
in its black light. The great master of eloquence,
St. Cyprian, found such hidden stores under his dark
language, that he is reported never to have passed a
day without reading him; and when he called for his
book, he used to say, “Give me my master.”
We find this once great man, who expressed in his
Apologetic (cap. 39) the most just and fearful
apprehension of excommunication, which he there called,
The anticipation of the future judgment, afterward
proud, arrogant, and at open defiance with the censures
of the Church. And this great genius seems even to lose
common sense when he writes in favor of his errors and
enthusiasm, as when, upon the authority of the dreams
of Priscilla and Maximilla, he seriously disputes on
the shape and color of a human soul, &c. He lived to a
very advanced age, and leaving the Montanists, became
the author of a new sect called from him Tertullianists,
who had a church at Carthage till St. Austin’s time,
when they were all reconciled to the Catholic faith.
Tertullian died towards the year 245.
The works which he wrote after his fall are, a book
On the Soul, pretending it to have a human figure, &c.
Another On the Flesh of Christ, proving that he took
upon him human flesh in reality, not in appearance
only. One on the Resurrection of the Flesh, proving
that great mystery. Five books Against Marcion, who
maintained that there were two principles or gods, the
one good the other evil; that the latter was worshipped
by the Jews, and was author of their law; but that the
good god sent Christ to destroy his works. Against this
heresiarch, Tertullian proves the unity of God, and
the sanctity of the Old Law and Testament. In his book
Against Praxeas he proves excellently the Trinity of
Persons, and uses the very word Trinity (c. 2), but
he impiously condemns Praxeas, because coming from the
East to Rome he had informed pope Victor of the errors
and hypocrisy of Montanus; on which account he says,
he had banished the Paraclete (Montanus) and crucified
the Father. “Paracletum fugavit, Patrem crucifixit,”
(c. 1.) For Praxeas, puffed up with the title of
confessor, broached the heresy of the Patripassians,
confounding the three Persons, and pretending that
the Father in the Son became man, and was crucified
for us. His apology for the Philosophers’ Cloak, which
he continued to wear rather than the Toga, for its
conveniency, and as an emblem of a severer life, seems
only writ to display his wit. His apology to Scapula,
proconsul of Africa in 211, is an exhortation to put a
stop to the persecution, alleging that “a Christian is
no man’s enemy, much less the emperor’s.” In his book
On Monogamy he maintains against the Psychici (so he
calls the Catholics) that second marriages are unlawful,
which was one point of his heresy. One of his arguments
is, the duty of a widow always to pray for the soul of
her deceased husband. (c. 10.)
He writ his book on Fasts, to defend the extraordinary
fasts commanded by the Montanists; but shows that
certain obligatory fasts were observed by the Catholics,
as that before Easter, since called Lent, in which
they fasted every day till vespers or evening-service:
that those of Wednesday and Friday till three o’clock,
called stations, were devotional. Some added to these
Xerophagia or the use only of dried meats, abstaining
from all vinous and juicy fruits; and some confined
themselves to bread and water. The Montanists kept
three Lents a year, and other fasts always till night,
and with the Xerophagia.
Tertullian wrote also his book On Chastity, against the
Catholics, because they gave absolution to penitents
who had been guilty of adultery or fornication. For the
Montanists denied that the Church could pardon sins of
impurity, murder, or idolatry. In this book he mentions
twice, that on the sacred chalices was painted the
image of the good shepherd bringing home the lost sheep
on his shoulders. Scoffing at a decree made by the
bishop of Rome at that time, he writes, “I am informed
that they have made a decree, and even a peremptory one;
the chief priest, that is, the bishop of bishops, saith;
I remit the sins of adultery and fornication to those
who have done penance.” (c. 1.) He calls him apostolic
bishop, c. 19, and blessed pope, c. 13, ib. His book
On the Crown was written in 235, the first year of
Maximinus, to defend the action of a Christian soldier
who refused to put on his head a garland, like the rest,
when he went to receive a donative. Tertullian says
these garlands were reputed sacred to some false god or
other. He alleges that by tradition alone we practise
many things, as the ceremonies used at baptism, yearly
oblations (or sacrifices) for the dead, and for the
festivals of martyrs, standing at prayer on the Lord’s
day, and from Easter to Whitsuntide, and the sign of
the cross “which we make,” says he, “upon our foreheads
at every action, and in all our motions at coming in or
going out of doors, in dressing or bathing ourselves;
when we are at table or in bed; when we sit down or
light a lamp, or whatever else we do.” (De Corona, c. 3
and 4.) His book On Flight, was written about the same
time to pretend to prove against the Catholics that it
is a crime to fly in time of persecution.
The most correct edition of Tertullian’s works is that
of Rigaltius, even that of Pamelius being ill pointed,
and abounding with faults; though Rigaltius’s notes on
this and some other fathers want much amendment.
[191] Tert. l. ad Scapul. c. 3.
[192] L. 7, Ep. 8.
[193] Euchar.
[194] Ennod. l. 8, Ep. 24, ad Faust.
[195] Magisteriani were officers under the Magister
Officiorum, who held one of the first dignities in
the imperial court, and had a superintendency over the
Palatines, inferior officers of the court, the schools
or academies of the court, and certain governors. See
Du Cange, Glossar.
[196] This ceremony was much more ancient. Alcuin and
Amalarius ascribe its institution to pope Zosimus; but
others make it of older date. At Rome the archdeacon on
Holy Saturday blessed wax mingled with oil, particles
of which having a figure of a lamb formed upon them
were distributed among the people. Hence was derived
the custom of Agnus Deis made of wax sometimes mixed
with relics of martyrs, which the popes blessed in
a solemn manner. See Saint Gregory of Tours, de Vit.
Patr. c. 8. The Rom. Order, Alcuin, Sirmond, Not. In
Ennod., &c.
[197] That a pretended woman called Joan interrupted
the series of the succession between Leo IV. and
Bennet III., is a most notorious forgery. Lupus
Ferrariensis, ep. 103, to Bennet III. Ado in his
Chronicle, Rhegino in his Chronicle, the annals of
St. Bertin, Hincmar ep. 26, pope Nicholas I. the
successor of Bennet III. ep. 46, even the calumniators
of the holy see, Photius l. De Process. Spir. Sti. and
Metrophanes of Smyrna, l. de Divinitate Spiritus Sancti,
who all lived at that very time, expressly testify,
that Bennet III. succeeded immediately Leo IV. Whence
Blondel, a violent Calvinist, has by an express
dissertation demonstrated the falsity of this fable.
Marianus Scotus, at Mentz, wrote two hundred years
after, in 1083, a chronicle in which mention is first
made of this fiction; from whence it was inserted in
the chronicle of Martinus Polonus, a Dominican, in 1277,
though it is wanting in the true MS. copy kept in the
Vatican library, as Leo Allatius assures us, and in
other old MS. copies, as Burnet (Nouvelles de la Rep.
des Lettres, Mars, 1687), Casleu (Catal. Bibl. reg.
Londin, p. 102), &c., testify. Lambecius, the most
learned keeper of the imperial library at Vienna,
in his excellent catalogue of that library, vol. ii.
p. 860, has demonstrated this of the oldest and best
manuscript copies of this chronicle; also of Marianus
Scotus. Her name was foisted into Sigebert’s Chronicle,
written in 1112; for it is not found in the original MS.
copy at Gemblours, authentically published by Miræus.
Platina, and the other late copies of Martinus Polonus
and Sigebert, borrow it from the first forger in the
copy of Marianus Scotus, probably falsified; certainly
of no authority and inconsistent; for there it is said
that she sat two years five months, and that she had
studied at Athens, where no schools remained long
before this time.
As to the porphyry stool shown in a repository
belonging to the Lateran church, which is said to have
been made use of on account of this fable, it is an
idle dream. There were two such stools; one is now
shown to travellers. It is certainly of old Roman
antiquity, finely polished, and might perhaps be used
at the baths or at some superstitious ceremonies.
The art of cutting or working in porphyry marble
was certainly lost long before the ninth age, and not
restored before the time of Cosmus the Great of Medicis;
this work is still exceeding slow and expensive. On
this idle fable see Lambecius, Blondel, Leo Allatius,
Nat. Alexander, Boerhave, &c.
[198] The emperor Adrian, nobly born at Italica, near Seville,
in Spain, was cousin-german to Trajan; and having been
adopted by him, upon his death ascended the imperial
throne in 117. He was extremely inquisitive, and fond
of whatever was surprising or singular, well skilled
in all curious arts, mathematics, judiciary astrology,
physic, and music. But this, says Lord Bacon, was an
error in his mind, that he desired to comprehend all
things, yet neglected the most useful branches of
knowledge. He was light and fickle; and so monstrous
was his vanity, that he caused all to be slain who
pretended in any art or science to rival him; and
it was accounted great prudence in a certain person
that he would not dispute his best with him, alleging
afterward that it was reasonable to yield to him
who commanded thirty legions. The beginning of this
prince’s reign was bloody; yet he is commended in it
for two things: the first is mentioned by Spartian,
that when he came to the empire he laid aside all
former enmities, and forgot past injuries: insomuch
that, being made emperor, he said to one who had been
his capital enemy: “Thou hast now escaped.” The other
is, that, when a woman cried to him as he was passing
by: “Hear me, Cæsar;” and he answered, “I have not
leisure.” The woman replied: “Then cease to reign.”
“Noli ergo imperare.” Whereupon he stopped and heard
her complaint.
[199] St. Paulin. ep. 11. ad Sever.
[200] St. Hieron. ep. 13. ad Paul.
[201] Adrian became more cruel than ever towards the end
of his life, and without any just cause put to death
several persons of distinction. At last he fell sick
of a dropsy at his house at Tibur. Finding that no
medicines gave him any relief, he grew most impatient
and fretful under his lingering illness, and wished
for death, often asking for poison or a sword, which
no one would give him, though he offered them money
and impunity. His physician slew himself that he might
not be compelled to give him poison. A slave named
Mastor, a barbarian noted for his strength and boldness,
whom the emperor had employed in hunting, was, partly
by threats, partly by promises, prevailed upon to
undertake it; but instead of complying, was seized with
fear, and durst not strike him, and fled. The unhappy
tyrant lamented day and night, that death refused to
obey and deliver him who had caused the death of so
many others. He at length hastened his death by eating
and drinking things contrary to his health in his
distemper, and expired with these words in his month,
“The multitude of physicians hath killed the emperor.”
“Turba medicorum Cæsarem perdidit.” (See Dio et
Spartian in Adr.) He died in 138, being sixty-two
years old, and having reigned twenty-one years.
[202] _A sette Frate_, in the villa of Mafiei, nine miles
from Rome. See Aringhi, Roma Subter. l. 3, c. 14.
[203] Ado, Usuard; Mart. Rom. cum notis Baronii et Lubin.
[204] The best editions of St. Philastrius’s book De
Hæresibus, are that printed in Hamburg in 1721, by the
care of Fabricius, who has illustrated it with notes;
and that procured by Cardinal Quirini at Brescia in
1738 together with the works of St. Gaudentius.
[205] St. Aug. Pref. l. de hæres.
[206] Utrecht was an archbishopric in the time of St.
Willibrord, but from his death remained a bishopric
subject first to Mentz, afterward to Cologne, till,
in the reign of Philip II. Paul IV. in 1559, restored
the archbishoprics of Utrecht and Cambray, and erected
Mechlin a third with the dignity of primate. To Utrecht
he subjected the new bishoprics of Haerlem, Middleburg,
Deventer, Lewarden, and Groeningen; to Mechlin, those
of Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges, Ipres, Bois-le-Duc and
Ruremond; to Cambray, those of Arras and Tournay,
with two new ones, St. Omer and Namur.
[207] He also gave him Austrasia, great part of which from
that age has been called Lorrain, either from this
Lothaire or rather his younger son of the same name,
whom he left king of that country.
[208] Louis left to her the management of all affairs, made
her elder brother Rodolph Guelph, governor of Bavaria,
and her younger brother, Conrad, governor of Italy,
and destined the best part of the kingdoms of Germany
and France to Charles _the Bald_, the son which she
bore him; to which dominions the sons by the first
wife thought they had a prior claim. They, by an
unjustifiable breach of their duty, twice took up arms
against their father; first in 830, when the empress
Judith was banished to a nunnery in Gascony, and the
emperor imprisoned; but he was soon released by the
Germans, and recalled Judith and her two brothers. In
the second rebellion, in 833, Lothaire, the eldest son,
banished Judith to Verona in Italy, and shut up her
son Charles in the abbey of Pruim, near Triers, and the
weak emperor himself in the abbey of St. Medard’s at
Soissons, after he had in an assembly of the states at
Compeigne, basely confessed himself justly deposed from
the empire, and guilty of the crimes which were laid
to his charge. He was afterward sent to the abbey of
St. Denys near Paris, and there clothed with the habit
of a monk; but soon after delivered by his two younger
sons, Pepin and Louis, and restored to his throne.
Judith after all these disturbances so dexterously
managed him that, at his death in 840, he left to her
son Charles the monarchy of France.
[209] P. 204.
[210] L. 1, de gestis Pontif. Angl. p. 197.
[211] Hist. Episcop. Ultraj.
[212] Chron.
[213] Ubbo Emmius, Rerum Frisic. l. 3, p. 74.
[214] The works of St. Bruno of Segni, or of Asti, with a
preliminary dissertation of Dom. Maur Marchesi were
printed at Venice in 1651, in two vols. folio, and in
the Bibl. Patr. at Lyons in 1677, t. 20. They consist
of comments on several parts of scripture, one hundred
and forty-five sermons, several dogmatical treatises,
and letters; and a life of St. Leo IX. and another
of St. Peter, bishop of Anagnia, whom Paschal II.
canonized. This latter the Bollandists have published
on the 3d of April.
[215] Collet, t. 1, b. 1, p. 66, 71.
[216] This book of Jansenius was condemned by Urban VIII.
in 1641, and in 1653 Innocent X. censured five
propositions to which the errors contained in this
book were principally reduced. Alexander VII. in 1656
confirmed these decrees, and in 1665 approved the
formulary proposed by the French clergy for the manner
of receiving and subscribing them. Paschasius Quenel,
a French oratorian, published in 1671 his book of
Moral Reflections on the Gospels, which he afterward
augmented, and added like reflections on the rest of
the New Testament, which work he printed complete in
1693 and 1694. In it he craftily insinuated the errors
of Jansenius, and a contempt of the censures of the
Church. Clement XI. condemned this book, in 1708; and
in 1713 by the Constitution Unigenitus, censured one
hundred and one propositions extracted out of it. These
decrees were all received and promulgated by the clergy
of France, and registered in the parliament of that
kingdom that they might receive the force of a law of
the state; and they are adopted by the whole Catholic
Church, as cardinal Bissy, Languet, and other French
prelates have clearly demonstrated.
The Jansenian heresy is downright Predestinationism,
than which no doctrine can be imagined more monstrous
and absurd. The principal errors couched in the
doctrine of Jansenists are, that God sometimes refuses,
even to the just, sufficient grace to comply with his
precepts; that the grace which God affords man since
the fall of Adam, is such that if concupiscence be
stronger, it cannot produce its effect; but if the
grace be more powerful than the opposite concupiscence
in the soul, or relatively to it victorious by a
_necessitating_ influence, that then it cannot be
resisted, rejected, or hindered; and that Christ
by his death paid indeed a price sufficient for the
redemption of all men, and offered it to purchase some
weak insufficient graces for reprobate souls, but not
to procure them means truly applicable, and sufficient
for their salvation; which is really to confine the
death of Christ to the elect, and to deprive the
reprobate of sufficient means to attain to salvation.
The main-spring or hinge of this system is that the
grace which inclines man’s will to supernatural virtue,
since the fall of Adam, consists in a moral pleasurable
motion or a delectation infused into the soul inclining
her to virtue, as concupiscence carries her to vice;
and that the power of delectation, whether of virtue
or vice, which is stronger, draws the will by an
inevitable necessity as it were by its own weight.
The equivocations by which some advocates for these
erroneous principles have endeavored to disguise or
soften their harshness, only discover their fear of the
light. A certain modern philosopher is more daring who,
in spite not only of revelation, which he disclaims,
but also of reason and experience, openly denies all
free-will or election in human actions, pretending to
apply this system of a two-fold delectation to every
natural operation of the will. (See Hume’s Essay on
Free-Will.) Those who obstinately oppose the decrees
of the Church in these disputes, without adopting any
heretical principle condemned as such by the Church,
but found their unjust exceptions in some points of
discipline, or any other weak pretences, cannot be
charged with heresy: nevertheless, only invincible
ignorance can exempt them from the guilt of
disobedience though they should not proceed to a
schismatical separation in communion.
[217] See F. Honoré Addit. sur les Observ. p. 241, &c.
Languet ep. Pastor, &c.
[218] Honoré, ibid. p. 245, 253, &c.
[219] See Collet’s life of St. Vincent, l. 3, t. 1, p. 260,
and Abelly, l. 2, ch. 12.
[220] L. 9.
[221] This consists in a prolapse both of the gut and the
omentum or caul together.
[222] T. 2, p. 546.
[223] “Fuge, tace, quiesce; hæc sunt principia salutis,”
Rosweide, Cotelier, et Saint Theod. Stud. Vit. S.
Arcen., c. 1, n. 7.
[224] A small Egyptian measure of vegetables made of
palm-tree leaves, as the word implies. See Cotelier,
Mon. Gr. t. 4, not. p. 748, and Du Cange, Gloss. Græc.
v. θάλλιν.
[225] St. Chrys. l. de Virginit. t. 1, p. 321, ed. Ben.
[226] St. Aug. in Ps. 128.
[227] St. John Clim. Grad. 7, p. 427.
[228] Gr. 27, n. 65.
[229] Conc. t. 4, p. 1286.
[230] Ennod. Apol. p. 342, ed. Sirmond. Item, l. 1, ep. 5.
Cassidor. in Chron. et Anast. in Pontific.
[231] Conc. t. 4, p. 1287.
[232] Ib. p. 1223.
[233] Dial. l. 4, c. 40. See Baron. ad an. 498, et Benedict
XIV. l. de Canoniz. Sanctor.
[234] T. 15, ch. 23, p. 352, Vie de Paschase.
[235] Symmach. Apol. t. 4, Conc. p. 1298.
[236] Ib. p. 1301.
[237] Act. i. 20.
[238] Hom. 3, in Act.
[239] Eus. Hist. l. 3, c. 39.
[240] L. 2, de Prædest.
[241] John Cassian, priest and abbot of the great monastery
of St. Victor’s at Marseilles, was a native of Lesser
Scythia, then comprised under Thrace. He inured himself
from his youth to the exercises of an ascetic life in
the monastery of Bethlehem. The great reputation of
many holy anchorets in the deserts of Egypt induced
him and one Germanus, about the year 390, to pay them
a visit. Being much edified with the great examples of
virtue they saw in those solitudes, especially in the
wilderness of Sceté, they spent there and in Thebais
several years. They lived like the monks of that
country, went bare-foot, and so meanly clad that their
friends would have been ashamed to meet them, and they
gained their subsistence by their work, as all the rest
did. (Col. 4, c. 10.) Their life was most austere,
and they scarce ate two loaves a day each of six
ounces. (Col. 19, c. 17.) In 403 they both went to
Constantinople, where they listened to the spiritual
instructions of St. Chrysostom, who ordained Cassian
deacon, and employed him in his church. After the
banishment of that holy prelate, Cassian and Germanus
travelled to Rome with letters from the clergy of
Constantinople to defend their injured pastor as
Palladius informs us. Cassian was promoted to the order
of priesthood in the West, and retiring to Marseilles,
there founded two monasteries, one for men, and another
for virgins, and wrote his spiritual Conferences and
other works. He died in odor of sanctity soon after
the year 433. His very ancient picture is shown in St.
Victor’s at Marseilles, where his head and right arm
are exposed in shrines on the altar, by the permission
of pope Urban V., the remainder of his body lies in a
marble tomb which is shown in a subterraneous chapel.
That abbey, by a special grant, celebrates an office
in his honor on the 23d of July.
His works consist, first of a book On the Incarnation,
against Nestorius, written at the request of St. Leo,
then archdeacon of Rome. Secondly, Of Institutions of a
Monastical Life, in twelve books. In the four first he
describes the habit that was worn, and the exercises
and way of living that were followed by the monks of
Egypt, to serve as a pattern for the monastic state in
the West. He says, their habit was mean, merely serving
to cover their nakedness; having short sleeves which
reached no further than their elbows; they wore a
girdle and a cowl upon their heads, but used no shoes,
only a kind of sandals which they put off when they
approached the altar; and they all used a walking-staff,
as an emblem that they were pilgrims on earth. He
observes that the monks forsook all things, labored
with their hands, and lived in obedience; he describes
the canonical hours of the divine office consisting of
psalms and lessons. He mentions that whoever desires to
be admitted into a monastery, must give proofs of his
patience, humility, and contempt of the world, and be
tried with denials and affronts; that no postulant was
allowed to give his estate to the monastery in which he
settled; that the first lesson which is taught a monk
is, to subdue his passions, to deny his own will, and
to practise blind obedience to his superior. Thus he is
to empty himself of all prevalence in his own abilities,
learning, or whatever can feed any secret pride or
presumption. Cassian observes, that young monks were
allowed no other food than boiled herbs, with a little
salt; but that the extraordinary austerities of the
Oriental monks in eating are not practicable in the
west. In the eight last books of this work he treats
of eight capital vices, prescribing the remedies and
motives against them, and explaining the contrary
virtues. He shows (l. 6, Inst. c. 5, 6), that chastity
is a virtue which is not to be obtained but by a
special grace of God; which must be implored by earnest
prayer, seconded by watchfulness and fasting. He
everywhere advises moderate fasts, but continual,
(l. 5, p. 107, &c.). He observes (l. 11, c. 4), that
vain-glory is the last vice that is subdued, and that
it takes occasion even from the victory itself to
renew its assaults. This seems the best and most
useful of Cassian’s writings, though the reading of
his Conferences has been strongly recommended to monks
by St. Bennet, St. John Climacus, St. Gregory, St.
Dominic, St. Thomas, and others.
In the book of his Conferences he has collected the
spiritual maxims of the wisest and most experienced
monks with whom he had conversed in Egypt. This
work consists of three parts; the first contains
ten Conferences, and was written in 423; the second
comprises seven Conferences, and was compiled two years
later; the third was finished in 428, and contains
seven other Conferences. Cassian, in this work, teaches
that the end to which a monk consecrates all his labors
and for which he has renounced the world, is, the more
easily to attain the most perfect purity or singleness
of heart, without which no one can see God in his glory,
or enjoy his presence by his special grace in this life.
For this he must forsake the world, or its goods and
riches; he must renounce or die to himself, divesting
himself of all vices and irregular inclinations; and
thirdly, he must withdraw his heart from earthly or
visible things to apply it to those that are spiritual
and divine. (Collat. 1 and 3.) He says, that the
veil of the passions being once removed, the eyes
of the mind will begin, as it were naturally to
contemplate the mysteries of God, which remain always
unintelligible and obscure to those who have only eyes
of flesh, or whose hearts are unclean, and their eyes
overclouded with sin and the world. (Coll. 5.) This
purgation of the heart is made by the exercises of
compunction, mortification, and self-denial; and the
unshaken foundation of the most profound humility must
be laid, which may bear a tower reaching to the heavens;
for, upon it is to be raised the superstructure of all
spiritual virtues. (Coll. 9.)
To gain a victory over vices he strenuously inculcates
the advantages of discovering all temptations to our
superior, for when detected, they lose their force;
the filthy serpent being by confession drawn out of
his dark hole into the light and in a manner exposed,
withdraws himself. His suggestions prevail so long as
they are concealed in the heart. (Coll. 2, c. 10, 11,
and Instit. l, 9, c. 39.) This he confirms by the
example of Serapion, cured of an inveterate habit of
stealing bread above his allowance in the community, by
confessing the fault. (Coll. 2, c. 11.) But he teaches
that these exercises are but preparations; for the
end and perfection of the monastic state consists in
continual and uninterrupted perseverance in prayer,
as far as human frailty will permit. This is the
conjunction of the heart with God. But this spirit of
prayer cannot be obtained without mighty contrition,
the purgation of the heart from all earthly corruption
and the dregs of passion, and the illumination of the
Holy Ghost, whose purest rays cannot enter an unclean
heart. He compares the soul to a light feather which
by its own levity is raised on high by the help of a
gentle breath; but if wet by the accession of moisture,
is depressed down to the very earth. The mind can only
ascend to God when it is disburdened of the weight of
earthly solicitude and corruption. (Coll. 9.)
He inculcates the use of frequent aspirations,
recommending that of the Church, “Deus, in adjutorium
meum intende,” &c.; and says, the end of the perfection
of the monastic state is, that the mind be refined from
all carnal dust, and elevated to spiritual things, till
by daily progress in this habit all its conversation
may be virtually one continual prayer, and all the
soul’s love, desire, and study, may be terminated
in God. In this her union with him by perpetual and
inseparable charity, she possesses an image of future
bliss, and a foretaste or earnest of the conversation
of the blessed. Inveighing against lukewarmness in
devotion he makes this remark (Coll. 4, c. 19): “We
have often seen souls converted to perfection from a
state of coldness, that is, from among worldlings and
heathens; but have never seen any from among tepid
Christians. These are moreover so hateful to God,
that by the prophet he bids his teachers not to direct
any exhortations to them, but to abandon them as a
fruitless barren land, and to sow the divine word on
new hearts, among sinners and heathens: ‘Break up the
new or fallow ground, and sow not upon land that is
overrun with thorns.’” (Jer. iv. 3.) He exceedingly
extols the unspeakable peace and happiness which souls
enjoy in seeking only God, and the great and wonderful
works which he performs in the hearts of his saints,
which cannot be truly known to any man except to
those who have experience of them. (Coll. 12, c. 12,
and Coll. 14, c. 14.) Cassian, in the thirteenth
Conference, under the name of the abbot Cheremon,
favors the principles of the Semipelagians, though that
error was not then condemned, it being first proscribed
in the second council of Orange in 529. Whence St.
Prosper himself, in his book against this discourse,
never names him, but styles him a catholic doctor.
(l. contra Collatorem, p. 828.) Cassian’s style, though
neither pure nor elegant, is plain, affecting, and
persuasive. His works were published with comments by
Alard Gazæus or Gazet, a Benedictin monk of St. Vaast’s
at Arras, first at Douay in 1616; and afterward with
more ample notes at Arras in 1618. They have been
since reprinted at Lyons, Paris, and Francfort. See
Dom. Rivet, Hist. Lit. t. 2, p. 215, and Cuper the
Bollandist, ad 23 Julij, t. 5, p. 458, ad 482.
[242] See the most edifying history of the eminent and holy
men of this monastery of St. Victor’s at Paris compiled
by F. Simon Gourdan, in seven volumes folio, kept in
MSS. in the curious public library of that house, t. 1,
p. 128, &c.
[243] Among the great men which this abbey produced in its
infancy, the most famous are Hugh and Richard of St.
Victor. Hugh, a native of the territory of Ypres in
Flanders, became a canon regular in this monastery
in 1115, was made prior, and taught divinity there
from the year 1130 to his death in 1142. His works are
printed in three vols. folio. In the first we have his
literal and historical notes on the scripture; also
mystical and allegorical notes on the same by some
later author of this house. In the second tome are
contained his spiritual works; the soliloquy of the
soul, the praise of charity, a discourse on the method
of praying, a discourse on love between the Beloved and
the Spouse, four books on the vanity of the world, one
hundred sermons, &c. The third tome presents us his
theological treatises, of which the principal are his
two books on the sacraments. He was called a second
Augustin, or the tongue of that great doctor, whose
spirit, sentiments, and style he closely follows. His
notes on the rule of St. Austin, in the second tome,
are excellent: also those on the Decalogue. The book
De claustro animæ is very useful for religious persons,
and shows the austere abstinence and discipline then
observed in monasteries; but is the work of Hugh Foliet,
a most pious and learned canon of this order, who was
chosen abbot of St. Dionysius’s at Rheims, though he
earnestly declined that dignity, in 1149. See Mabillon,
Analecta, t. 1, p. 133, and Annal. l, 77, p. 141.
Ceillier, t. 22, pp. 200, 224. Martenne, t. 5. Anecdot.
p. 887.
Richard of St. Victor, a Scotsman, regular canon of
St. Victor’s at Paris, scholar of Hugh, chosen prior of
that abbey in 1164, died in 1173. His works have been
often reprinted in two vols. folio; the best edition
is that given at Rouen in 1650. His comments on the
scripture are too diffusive: his theological tracts
are accurate, his writings on contemplation and
Christian virtues, though the style is plain, are
full of the most sublime rules of an interior life.
The collection of spiritual maxims of these holy men
which F. Gourdan has compiled from their writings and
sayings, demonstrates their heavenly wisdom, lights
and experience in spiritual things, and in the perfect
spirit of all virtues to which they attained by an
admirable purity of heart, and spirit of penance,
prayer, and divine love.
[244] Luke vii.
[245] Mention is made in the gospels of a woman who was a
sinner (Luke vii.), of Mary of Bethania, the sister
of Lazarus (John xi. 2, xii. 1, Mark xiv. 3, Mat.
xxvi. 6.), and of Mary Magdalen, who followed Jesus
from Galilee, and ministered to him. Many grave authors
think all this belongs to one and the same person; that
she fell into certain disorders in her youth, and in
chastisement was delivered over to be possessed by
seven devils; that she addressed herself to Jesus in
the house of Simon the pharisee, and by her compunction
deserved to hear from him that her sins were forgiven
her; and in consequence was delivered from the seven
devils: that with her brother Lazarus, and her sister
Martha, she left Galilee and settled at Bethania, where
Jesus frequently honored their house with his presence.
(See Pezron, Hist. Evang. t. 2, p. 350.) St. Clement of
Alexandria, (l. 2, Pædag. c. 8.) Ammonius, (Harmon. 4,
Evang.) St. Gregory the Great, (hom. 25 and 33, in
Evang.) and from his time the greater part of the
Latins down to the sixteenth century adopt this opinion;
though St. Ambrose, (lib. de Virgin. et l. 6, in Luc.)
St. Jerom, (in Mat. xxvi. l. 2, contr. Jovin. c. 16,
Præf. in Osee et ep. 150.) St. Austin, (tr. 49, in Joan.
n. 3.) Albertus Magnus, and St. Thomas Aquinas leave
the question undetermined. The two last say the Latins
in their time generally presumed that they were the
same person, but that the Greeks distinguished them.
Baronius, Jansenius of Ghent, Maldonat, Natalis
Alexander, (in Hist. Eccl. Sæc. 1, Diss. 17.) Lami,
(Harmon. Evang. et epist. Gallicâ.) Mauduit, (Analyse
des Evang. t. 2.) Pezron, Trevet, and strenuously
Solier the Bollandist, t. 5, Julij, p. 187, and others
have written in defence of the opinion of St. Gregory
the Great.
Others think these were distinct persons. This
sentiment is adopted by the Apostolic Constitutions,
(l. 3, c. 6.) St. Theophilus of Antioch, (in 4 Evang.)
St. Irenæus, (l. 3, c. 4.) Origen, (hom. 35, in Mat.
et hom. 1, or 2, Cant.) St. Chrysostom, (hom. 81, in
Mat. 26, et hom. 61, in Joan.) St. Macanus, (hom. 12,)
and by almost all the Greeks. Among the modern critics
Casaubon, (Exercit. 14, in Baron.) Estius, (Or. 14,)
three Jesuits, viz., Bulanger, (Diatrab. 3, p. 15,)
Turrian, (in Consens. l. 3, c. 6,) and Salmeron,
(t. 9, tr. 49,) also Zagers, a learned Franciscan,
(in Joan. 11.) Mauconduit, Anquetin, Tillemont, (t. 2,
p. 30, et 512.) Hammond, and many others, strenuously
assert these to have been three distinct women.
Some, whose sentiment appears most plausible to Toinard
and Calmet, distinguish the sister of Lazarus and
Magdalen; for this latter attended Christ the last
year of his life, and seems to have followed him from
Galilee to Jerusalem, when he came up to the Passover,
(see Mat. xxvii. 56, 57, Mark xv. 40, 41, Luke xxiii.
49,) at which time the sister of Lazarus was with her
brother and Martha at Bethania, (John xi. 1.) Moreover,
these two women seem distinctly characterized, the
one being called Magdalen, and being ranked among the
women that followed Jesus from Galilee, the other being
everywhere called the sister of Lazarus; and though
she might have possessed an estate at Magdalum in
Galilee, and have come originally from that country,
this constant distinction of epithets naturally leads
us to imagine them different persons; but St. Irenæus,
Origen, St. Chrysostom, &c., nowhere distinguish the
penitent and Magdalen: and St. Luke having mentioned
the conversion of the sinful woman (at Naim) in the
next chapter, subjoins, that certain women who had been
delivered by him from evil spirits and infirmities,
followed him; and among these he names Mary Magdalen,
out of whom he had cast seven devils; whence it may
seem reasonable to conclude that the penitent and
Magdalen are the same person.
This disputation, however, seems one of those
debateable questions which are without end, nothing
appearing demonstrative from the sacred text, or from
the authority of the ancients. In the Roman Breviary
the Penitent is honored on this day under the name of
Mary Magdalen, and for our edification the history of
all these examples of virtue is placed in one point of
view, as if they belonged to one person, conformably
to the sentiment of St. Gregory and others; but the
offices are distinct in the Breviaries of Paris,
Orleans, Vienne, Cluni, and some others.
[246] Job xx. 11.
[247] “Quâ spe? quâ fiduciâ? quâ confidentiâ? Quâ spe? illâ
quâ Pater est. Ego perdidi quod erat filii: ille quod
Patris est non amisit. Apud patrem non intercedit
extraneus: intus est in Patris pectore qui intervenit
et exorat, affectus. Urgentur Patris viscera iterum
genitura per veniam,” &c. St. Peter Chrysolog. Serm. II.
[248] The ancient Jews did not sit down on carpets spread
on the floor to eat, as the Arabs, Turks, and other
inhabitants of the countries about Palestine do at
this day. Their tables were raised above the ground.
Exod. xxv. 24, Jud. l. 7, Mat. xv. 27, Luke xvi. 21.
Neither Hebrews, Greeks, nor Romans used napkins or
table-cloths. Their ancient custom was to sit at table,
as we do now. Prov. xxiii. 1. But after Solomon’s time
the Jews leaned or lay down on couches round the table.
Amos, (iv. 7.) Toby, (xi. 3.) and Ezekiel (xxiii. 41.)
speak of eating on beds or couches; but this custom
was not general. It was become very frequent in our
Saviour’s time, who ate in this manner not only on
the present occasion, but also when Magdalen anointed
his feet, Mat. xxvi. 7, and at his last supper,
John xiii. 23, so that it seems to have then been the
ordinary custom of that country. The Jews seem to have
learned it from the Persians, Esth. i. 6, vii. 8. They
took two meals a day from the times of the primitive
patriarchs; but never ate before noon, Eccles. x. 16,
Isa. v. 11, Acts ii. 15. And their dinner was usually
rather a small refreshment than a meal; on fast-days
the Jews never ate or drank till evening. See Calmet,
Dissert. sur le Manger des Hebreux. Fleury, Mœurs des
Israelites et Mœurs des Chrétiens. Also Alnay, sur la
Vie Privée des Romains.
[249] S. Aug. Serm. 99, c. 6, ed. Ben. olim 23, ex. 50.
[250] Ferrarius, Daniel, Sanson, Calmet, and Monsieur Robert
agree in placing the castle of Magdalum near the Lake
of Genesareth, called the sea of Galilee.
[251] Luke viii. 2
[252] Some take Mary Magdalen to be the sister of Martha and
Lazarus, of whom mention is made in the life of St.
Martha. When Jesus, six days before his passion,
supped in the house of Simon surnamed the Leper, whilst
Martha waited on him, and Lazarus sat at table, Mary
anointed his feet and head with precious ointment which
she had brought in an alabaster box. The Greeks and
Romans practised the same custom of using sweet scented
ointments at banquets. Judas Iscariot murmured at this
action out of covetousness, pretending the price of the
ointment had better been given to the poor; but Jesus
commended Mary’s devotion, said that her action would
be a subject of admiration and edification wherever his
gospel should be preached, and declared that she had by
it advanced the ceremony of embalming his body for his
burial. Though Christ has substituted the poor in his
stead, to be succored by us in them; yet he is well
pleased when charity consecrates some part of our
riches to his external worship, to whom we owe all that
we possess. But nothing can be more odious than for
ministers of the altar, with Judas, to cover avarice
under a cloak of zeal. See John xii. 1, 2, 3, Mat.
xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3.
[253] Mark xvi. 2, Luke xxiv. 1, John xx. 1.
[254] St. Leo Serm. 2, de Ascens.
[255] John xx. Calmet, Vie de. J. C, ch. 37.
[256] Mat. xxvii. 9, Luke xxiv. 10.
[257] Certain Greeks, writers who lived in the seventh or
later ages, tell us, that after the ascension of our
Lord, St. Mary Magdalen accompanied the Blessed Virgin
and St. John to Ephesus, and died and was buried in
that city. This is affirmed by Modestus, patriarch of
Jerusalem in 920,[258] and by St. Gregory of Tours.
St. Willibald, in the account of his pilgrimage to
Jerusalem, says, that her tomb was shown him at Ephesus.
Simeon Logotheta mentions that the emperor Leo the
Wise caused her relics to be translated from Ephesus to
Constantinople, and laid in the church of St. Lazarus,
about the year 890. But these modern Greeks might
perhaps confound Mary the sister of the Blessed Virgin,
or the sister of Lazarus, or some other Mary among
those that are mentioned in the gospel with Mary
Magdalen. The relics shown in the monastery at Vezelay
in Burgundy, ten leagues from Auxerre in the diocess
of Autun, may be a portion of the body of St. Mary
Magdalen, or of some other Mary mentioned in the
gospel. This famous ancient monastery of Vezelay was
secularized in 1537; and the church, which is longer
than that of our Lady at Paris, is now served only by
ten canons.
[258] Hom. in Marias Unguenta ferentes.
[259] See Nat. Alex., sæc. 1, and Solier the Bollandist,
Julij, t. 5, who confirms the tradition of the
inhabitants of Provence, p. 213, § 14, and rejects
that of Vezelay in Burgundy, whither some pretend
that her body was translated out of Provence, ib.
§ 11, 12, 13, p. 207.
[260] These are the fruit of his pious meditations in the
chapel of the Magdalen, the favorite retired place of
his devotions, in which an excellent marble statue of
this great man on his knees, is erected in the church
of his Carmelite nuns at Paris. See his Works, p. 369
to p. 405.
[261] Serm. 128.
[262] Mab. Iter. Italic. p. 41.
[263] Famæ negociator, et vitæ. Tertul. Apol. c. 46.
[264] Philosophus gloriæ animal, et popularis auræ vile
mancipium. S. Hieron. ep. ad Julian.
[265] Lactant. l. de Origine Erroris, § 3.
[266] B. 6, ep. 1.
[267] Spicileg. t. 5, p. 579.
[268] Exod. xxxii. 10.
[269] Sanctorum precibus stat mundus. Ruffin. Præf. in Vitas
Patrum.
[270] Some derive the pedigree and names of the Muscovites
from Mosoch, the son of Japhet, who, with his brothers
Magog, Thubal, and Gomer, and their children peopled
the northern kingdoms. (Ezech. xxxviii. 6, &c.) These
are reputed the patriarchs of the Cappadocians, Tartars,
Scythians, Sarmatians, &c. See Bochart, Phaleg. l. 3,
c. 12, and Calmot. It seems not to be doubted, that
the Moschi, mentioned by Strabo and Mela, and situated
between Colchis and Armenia, near the Moschici Montes,
were the descendants of Mosoch. As the Scythians from
the coasts of the Euxine and Caspian seas afterward
penetrated more northwards in Asia and Europe, and as
the Cimmerii, who were the sons of Gomer, afterward
settled about the Bosphorus and Mœotis, so some
authors pretend that the Moschi passed into Europe,
and settled near them on the borders of the Scythians
and Sarmatians. But the Muscovites evidently take their
name from the city of Moscow, built about the year 1149,
so called from a monastery named Moskoi (from Mus or
Musik, men, _q. d._ the Seat of Men), not from the
river Moscow, which was anciently called Smorodina.
(See J. S. Bayei, Orig. Russiæ, t. 8, Acad. Petrop.
p. 390.) For the name of Muscovites was not given to
this tribe of Russians before the beginning of the
fourteenth century. It was assumed on the following
occasion: In 1319, Gedimidius, great duke of Lithuania,
having vanquished the Russian duke of Kiow, the
archbishop Peter removed his see to Moscow, and from
that town these Russians began then to be called
Muscovites; for the duke John, son of Daniel, soon
followed the archbishop, and transferred thither
the seat of his principality from Uladimiria: though
the archbishop of Kiow continued to take the title
of Metropolitan of all Russia. See Herbersteinus
(Chorographia Principatus Ducis Moscoviæ; also, in
Rerum Muscovitarum Commentar.) and more accurately
Ignatius Kulczynski, in Latin Kulcinius, a Basilian
monk at Rome. (Specimen Ecclesiæ Ruthenicæ, printed at
Rome in 1733, also Catalog. archiepisc. Kioviensium;
and Series Chronol. Magn. Russiæ seu Moscoviæ Ducum.)
Hence the name of Muscovites first occurs in
Chalcocondylus and other Greek historians about
that time. We are informed by these authors, and by
Herbersteinius, that these Russians were tributary to
the Tartar king of Agora in Asia from 1125 to 1506. But
since they shook off that yoke they have subdued the
Russians of Novogorod and other places in Europe, and
have extended their dominions almost to the extremity
of Asia in Great Tartary. See Bayer, Diss. de Russorum
primâ expedit. Constantinopolitana, t. 6, Comm. Acad.
Petrop. et Orig. Russiæ, ib. t. 8. Also Jos. Assemani,
De Kalend. Univ. t. 1, par. 2, c. 4, p. 275.
The name, Russi or Rossi, seems not to be older than
the ninth century. Cedrenus and Zonarus speak of them
as a Scythian nation inhabiting the northern side of
Mount Taurus, a southern region of Asiatic Scythia, now
Great Tartary. They are a nation entirely distinct from
the Roxolani, the ancient Sarmatians near the Tanais,
though these Russians afterward became masters of
that country, and took their name either from that
of Roxolani abridged, or from Rosseia, which in their
language signifies an assemblage of people. Constantine
Porphyrogenetta tells us, that the language of the
Russians and Sclavonians was quite different; and the
monk Nestor, in the close of the eleventh century,
the most ancient historian of Russia, in his chronicle
assures us, that the Russians and Sclavonians are
two different nations; but the great affinity of the
present Russian language with the Sclavonian shows that
the Russians, mixing with the Sclavonians, learned in a
great measure their language.
It is well known that, anciently, the southern parts
of Muscovy were inhabited by Goths, whom the Huns
or ancient Tartars from Asia, expelled in the fourth
century. Also that the northern part was peopled by
Scythians, whom the Muscovites still call by the same
name Tscudi, _i. e._ Scythians, and the lake Peipus,
Tschudzhoi. We learn from Constantine Porphyrogenetta
(l. De administ. Imper. c. 9,) that the name of Russia
was given in the tenth century to the country of
which Kiow was the capital, and which comprised also
Czernigov, Novogorod, &c. Snorro Sturleson (Hist. regn.
Septentr. t. 1, p. 6) says these people called their
ancient capital, situated towards the gulf of Finland,
Aldeiguborg or Old-Town, in opposition to which
Novogorod or New-Town, took its name. The Waregians,
invited by the Russians to defend them against the
Khosares, who lived near the Black or the Euxine Sea,
crossing the Baltic, settled among the Russians, it
is uncertain in what age. See T. S. Bayer de Varegis,
t. 4, Comment. Acad. Scient. Petrop. p. 275. Er.
Jul. Biæner, Sched. Hist. Geogr. de Varegis heroibus
Scandinianis et primis Russiæ Dynasts at Stockholm,
1743. Arvid. Mulleris De Varegia, 1731. Algol. Scarinus
de Originibus priscæ gentis Varegorum, 1743.
We know not in what age the Sclavonians obtained
settlements in the northern parts of Russia. They are
first named in Procopius and Jornandes, were part of
the Venedi, and with them from Sarmatia travelled into
Germany; where they settled for some time on the coast
of the Baltic, afterward in the centre of Germany
near Thuringia, and in Beheim or Bohemia, where they
long ruled and left their language. In the reign of
Justinian they crossed the Danube, and conquered part
of Pannonia and Illyricum, where a small territory,
fifty German miles long, of which Peter-waradin is
the most considerable place, between the Danube, the
Drave, and the Save, is still called Sclavonia: it was
conquered by the kings of Hungary, and is still subject
to the house of Austria. The Slavi fell everywhere
into so miserable a servitude, that from them are
derived the names of Slavery and Slaves. The Sclavonian
language is used in the divine office in Illyricum, &c.
according to the Latin rite; in Muscovy, &c. according
to the Greek rite. (See on SS. Cyril and Methodius,
22 Dec.) The Muscovites have no Russian Bibles; but
with very little study can understand the Sclavonian,
says Brusching.
In the year 892, Rurik, Simeus, and Tyuwor, three
brothers from the Warengi on the other side of the
Baltic, came by invitation into Russia, and ruled the
Sclavonians and Russians united into one nation. Rurik
survived his brothers, and became sole sovereign. The
Runic inscriptions in the northern Antiquities are not
of an older date.
Rurik fixed his seat near the lake Ladoga. His son
Igor transferred his court from Novogorod to Kiow.
His widow Olga received the faith, and was baptized at
Constantinople. Their son Suatoslas died an idolater;
but his son Wladimir the Great married Anne, a Grecian
princess, received baptism, and was imitated by his
subjects. He built the city which from him is called
Wladimiria, which under his grandson, Andrew Bogolikski,
became the ducal residence. Wladimir I. is honored
in the Muscovite Calendar. Kiow still has its dukes.
Jaroslas, son of Wladimir, was succeeded there by
his son Wsevolod I. in 1078, in whose reign Ephrem,
metropolitan of Kiow, established in Russia, pursuant
to the bull of Urban II. the feast of the translation
of the relics of St. Nicholas to Bari, on the 9th of
May, never known in the Greek church; which shows their
obedience to the pope, and their connection with the
Latin church. The Greeks also were then Catholics.
George duke of Russia at Wladimiria recovered Kiow,
and in 1156 built the city of Moscow. Jaroslas II.
succeeded his brother George II. in the great dukedom
of Russia in 1238, and resided in Wladimiria. In his
reign in 1244, the Russians were reunited to the see
of Rome, part having been a little before drawn into
the Greek schism. His son Alexander, in his father’s
life-time prince of Novogorod, with his brother Feodor
or Theodor, gained great victories over the Tartars,
who had long oppressed the Russians, and succeeded to
the great dukedom in 1246. He is surnamed Newski or of
Newa, from a great victory which he gained in 1241 on
the banks of the Newa, over the Poles and the Teutonic
knights in Livonia. Those knights, who by victories
over the idolaters had made themselves masters of
Livonia, had their own high master at Riga, who
soon made himself independent of the grand-master
of the same order in Prussia. This order, which was
dismembered from the Knights Hospitallers, or of
Jerusalem (afterward of Rhodes and Malta), to defend
the Christians in Germany against the inroads of the
barbarous northern infidel nations, long produced many
incomparably great heroes, and models of all virtues.
But enriched by great conquests, their successors,
by pride, luxury, and continual intestine wars, gave
occasion to several scandals. At length, Albert,
marquis of Brandenburg, grand-master in Prussia, turned
Lutheran, and received from the king of Poland the
investiture of ducal Prussia. The knights expelled
by him retired to Mariandhal in Franconia, and there
chose a new grand-master. He is chosen by the twelve
provincial commanders. William of Furstenburg,
Heer-meister of Livonia, also declared himself a
Lutheran, and in 1559 resigned his dignity to his
coadjutor Gotthard Kettler. He also being a Lutheran,
ceded part of Livonia to the Danes, and the chief part
to the Poles, receiving from the latter the investiture
of Courland and Samogitia as secular dukedoms; Livonia
fell under the power of Charles XI. of Sweden, but was
added to the empire of Muscovy by Peter the Great.
To return to the grand duke Alexander Newski, he
received an embassy from the pope in 1262, the contents
of which are not recorded. He died crowned with glory
at Gorodes near Nischui-Novogorod in 1262, on the 30th
of April, on which day his festival is kept in Muscovy,
and he is honored as one of the principal saints of the
country. The tczar Peter the Great built, in his honor,
a magnificent convent of Basilian monks on the banks
of the Newa in Livonia, not far from his new city of
Petersburg, the archbishop of which city resides in it.
The empress Catharine instituted, in 1725, the second
Order of Knighthood in Russia under his name. Their
daughter the empress Elizabeth caused his bones to
be put in a rich shrine covered with thick plates of
silver, placed at the foot of a magnificent mausoleum
in this monastery. The Muscovites relate wonderful
things of his eminent virtues, and miracles wrought
at his tomb. Pope Benedict XIV. proves that, upon due
authority, all this may be admitted even of one who had
died in a material schism, or with inculpable ignorance.
But this prince lived and died in communion with the
see of Rome, though he has never been placed in the
Calendars of the Catholic Church.
Daniel, fourth son of Alexander, left by his father
duke of Moscow, after the death of an uncle and three
brothers became Grand Duke; and from his reign in 1304,
Moscow became the ducal residence, till Peter I. gave a
share in that honor to his new city of St. Petersburg.
In the reign of Basil or Vasili II. in 1415, Photius,
metropolitan of Russia, residing at Kiow, having
espoused the Greek schism, was deposed by the council
of Novogrodek, under the protection of Alexander
Vithold, grandduke of Lithuania. Retiring into Great
Russia he there exceedingly promoted the schism.
Gregory, who succeeded him at Kiow, assisted at the
council of Constance. Iwan or John IV. is the first
who took the title of Tczar in 1552. This word in
the Russian language signifies king. In the Russian
Chronicles that title is given to the Greek emperors.
In their Bibles it is used for king, both in the
Russian and Sclavonian language.
In Feodor or Theodore ended, in 1598, the race of Rurik.
After two others who had been chief ministers and two
false Demetriuses, in 1613, Michael, of the family of
Romanow, allied to that of the preceding tczars was
chosen great duke. The third of this family was Peter
the Great, founder of the Russian empire.
[271] Possev. L. De Rebus Moscoviticis.
[272] Præf. ad Ephemer. Græco-Moschas, n. 11, p. 3.
[273] Dissert. de Russorum Conversione et Fide apud Acta
Sanctor. t. 41, seu vol. 2, Septembris.
[274] Constantine Porphyrogenetta succeeded Leo the Wise in
the empire in 911; in 919 he associated in the throne
his Drungar or admiral Romanus Lecapenus, whose
daughter Helena he had married. Romanus reigned in the
year 944; from which time his covetous daughter Helena
had a great share in governing the empire. Constantine
was buried in his studies, and dying in 959, fifty-four
years old, left the empire to his impious son Romanus
II., who is said to have poisoned him, and who died
in 963, leaving the empire to Nicephorus Phocas, his
valiant general, who had often defeated the Russians
and Saracens. His daughter Anne was married to Wladimir,
duke of Russia. Constantine Porphyrogenetta (l. de Cœm.
Aulæ Byzant. l. 2, c. 15) relates, that on Wednesday,
the 9th of September, 946, Olga, princess of Russia,
was received with great pomp at Constantinople by
Constantine (himself) and Romanus, emperors; and
describes her different receptions at their court,
the banquets which they prepared for her, the presents
in money which they made to her uncle of thirty
miliaretia (each of which contained two ceratia, each
ceratium twelve folles, of which five hundred made a
pound of silver), eight to her priest Gregory and to
each of her friends, to herself five hundred miliaretia
in a gold dish studded with diamonds and precious
stones. At each other entertainment like presents were
distributed. The dessert of sweetmeats was served on a
little gold table, in dishes made of or studded with
precious stones.
[275] See the Annals of the Russians in Hebersteinius, in
Rerum Muscovit. Comment. and Jos. Assemani, in Calend.
Univ. t. 2, p. 265, and t. 3.
[276] Syn. Zamosciania, tit. de Jejun. et Fest. p. 121. Jos.
Assemani, de Calend. Univ. t. 4, p. 65, t. 6, p. 497.
[277] The United Russians, who, renouncing the schism,
embraced the communion of the Roman Church, are chiefly
subject to Poland, and ever since Clement VIII. have a
metropolitan of Kiow (since Kiow was conquered by the
Muscovites these have established there their schism
with a metropolitan of their communion), an archbishop
of Plosco, and bishops of Kelma, Presmilia, Liceoria,
and Leopold, with several convents of Basilian monks,
who all follow the Greek rites; though several Russians
in the Polish dominions still adhere to the Greek
schism. See Urban Cerri’s (secretary to the Propaganda)
Relation, p. 56, and Mamachi, Orig. et Antiquit. Christ.
l. 2, c. 17, t. 2, p. 180. Papebroke, Not. in Ephemer.
Græc. Mosch. t. 1, Maij Bollandiani, p. 54, &c.
The metropolitan of Moscow was declared patriarch of
all the Russian schismatics by Jeremy, patriarch of
Constantinople in 1588, and was acknowledged in that
character by the other Oriental patriarchs. But the
czar Peter I. having learned from the experience of
above a hundred years that the patriarchs made use
of their great influence and authority in matters of
state, after that dignity had been vacant nineteen
years, caused it to be abolished, and an archbishop of
Moscow to be chosen in 1719. For the government of the
church of Muscovy, and receiving appeals, he appointed
a council of eleven bishops and other clergymen, the
president of which the czar nominates. See John Von
Strahlenburg (Historical and Geographical Description
of Russia and Siberia, an. 1738) and Le Quien. (Oriens
Christianus, t. 1, p. 1296.) Some Catholics enjoy the
exercise of their religion in several parts of Muscovy.
Kulcinius observes that many saints have flourished
in this nation since it has been engaged in schism.
Possevinus and Papebroke take notice that the Greeks
since their schism have been reunited to the Latin
church fourteen times. The latter of these learned
authors also remarks, that even when the archbishops
were most turbulent schismatics, no one will say that
all the people were involved in the same guilt; even
ignorance might excuse many, as Baronius answered,
with regard to monks who lived under a schismatical
abbot (ad an. 1036). As for Polish Russia, F. Kulesza,
a learned Polish Jesuit, in a book entitled, Fides
Orthodoxa, printed at Vilna, assures us, that all the
archbishops of Kiow have been Catholics, except two,
Photius and Jonas II., till in 1686 it was given up to
the Muscovites. By the intrigues of this Photius, in
the middle of the fifteenth century, the Greek schism
was propagated through all Muscovy.
[278] See Jos. Assemani in Calend. t. 6, p. 480, on the 15th
of July, et t. 4, p. 34, to 52.
[279] See Jos. Assemani in Calend. p. 471, t. 6, ad 10 Julij.
[280] Id. ad 5 Julij, p. 462, et t. 1, p. 21, 29.
[281] Ardmore (so called from its situation on an eminence)
stands on the sea-coast, not far from the mouth of the
river now called Broad-water or Black-water. The see
was united to that of Lismore after the arrival of the
English in Ireland; and this again to Waterford. See
St. Carthag’s life, 14 May.
[282] Mat. iv. 22.
[283] Luke v. 11.
[284] Luke ix.
[285] Julij, t. 6, p. 69. See on the same the learned F.
Flores, in his España Sagrada, t. 3, c. 3, de la
Predicacion de San Jago in España, p. 39, and his
answers to F. Mamachi, the Roman Dominican, prefixed
to his sixth tome. The mission of St. James in Spain
is defended at large by the learned Jesuit F. Farlat,
Illyrici Sacri Prolegom. part 3, t. 1, p. 252. See also
Card. d’Aguirre, t. 1, Conc. Hisp. p. 140, upon the
words of St. Jerom in Isaiæ c. 34, p. 279, t. 3.
[286] Diss. de Divisione Apost. ante t. 4, Julij, et in vita
S. Jacobi, t. 6, p. 71.
[287] Agrippa the Elder was a worldly man, addicted to
pleasures, yet attached to the Jewish religion. Of
this he gave a remarkable proof when the emperor
Caligula ordered a statue of Jupiter to be set up in
the temple of Jerusalem. The Jews opposed the attempt
with tears and remonstrances, and throwing themselves
prostrate on the ground at the feet of the Roman
governor, protested they were ready rather to suffer
death. But the murderers of the Son of God were
unworthy to die in so good a cause. Agrippa exposed
himself to the danger of losing the tyrant’s favor,
and by a strong letter, which he wrote to him on that
occasion, obtained that the order should be superseded
at that time. When that emperor was attempting to renew
it his death delivered the Jews from the danger.
[288] Eus. Hist. l. 2, c. 9.
[289] Agrippa was the first prince that persecuted the Church.
After having put to death St. James, he imprisoned St.
Peter, but God delivered him out of the persecutor’s
hands. Nor was it long before this king felt the
effects of divine vengeance. After the feast of the
passover he returned to Cæsarea to exhibit there public
games in honor of Claudius Cæsar, and was attended
thither with a numerous train of the must considerable
persons, both of his own and of the neighboring nations.
He appeared early on the second morning of the shows
at the theatre, in a costly robe of silver tissue,
artfully wrought, and so bright that the sunbeams which
darted upon it were reflected with such an uncommon
lustre, as to dazzle the eyes of the spectators who
beheld him with a kind of divine respect. He addressed
himself in an elegant speech, to the deputies of the
Tyrians and Sidonians, who were come to beg his pardon
for some offence for which they had been some time in
disgrace with him. Whilst he spoke, the ambassadors and
some court sycophants gave a great shout, crying out
that it was the voice of a god and not of a man. The
king, too sensible of the people’s praise, and elated
with pride, seemed to forget himself, and to approve,
instead of checking the impious flattery. But at that
instant the angel of the Lord smote him with a dreadful
disease, and he felt himself seized with a violent pain
in his bowels. Perceiving his distemper to be mortal,
he rejected the flattery of his sycophants, telling
them that he whom they called immortal was dying. Yet
still full of false ideas of human grandeur, though
he saw death inevitable, he comforted himself with
the remembrance of the splendor in which he had lived.
So true it is that a man dies such as he lives. After
lingering five days in exquisite torments, under which
no remedy gave him any ease, being eaten up by worms,
he expired in all the miseries that can be expressed or
imagined. This account is given us by Josephus (Antiq.
l. 19, c. 7), and by St. Luke (Acts xii. 23). He died
in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and the seventh of
his reign. The most learned Mr. Stukely in his medallic
history of Carausius, t. 2, c. 1, p. 72, will have it
that Agrippa was smitten four days after he celebrated
the Roman festival, in which the people made vows for
the emperor’s health and safety, marked in the ancient
Roman Calendar which he has published on the 4th of
January. It was, indeed, the festival of the emperor
Claudius, but after the passover, which happened that
year on the 10th of April, the equinoctial new moon
falling on the 28th of March. Herod Agrippa left a son
of his own name, who was then at Rome with Claudius,
only seventeen years old. The emperor would willingly
have given him his father’s dominions; but his freemen
and counsellors represented to him that an extensive
kingdom was too great a burden for so young a prince to
bear. Whereupon Judæa was again reduced into the form
of a Roman province, and Cuspius Fadus appointed the
first prefect or governor.
[290] See on the Translation of the body of St. James to
Compostella, F. Flores, the learned and inquisitive
Austin friar, rector of the royal college at Alcala,
in his curious work entitled España Sagrada (of which
the first volume was printed in 1747), t. 3, App.
p. 50 and 56.
[291]
“Christophore, infixum quòd cum usque in corde gerebas,
Pictores Christum dant tibi ferre humeris,” &c.
_Vida_, Hym. 26, t. 2, p. 150.
[292] Procop. de Ædif. Justin. l. 1, c. 2.
[293] Julij, t. 6, p. 250.
[294] 2 Tim ii. 5. 1 Tim. v. 4.
[295] Plutarch l. de Educand. liberis.
[296] Hist. Episc. Antisiodor. See Messieurs De Ste. Marthe,
in Gallia Christiana.
[297] Prosp. in Chron. et l. contra Collat. c. 21.
[298] Bede Hist l. 1, c. 17, Constant. in vita S. Germani.
[299] Vita S. Genevevæ.
[300] Hist. Episcop. Antisiod.
[301] Bede, Hist. l. 1, c. 1. Gildas ep. p. 17, 18.
Constantius in vitâ S. Germani. Carte, p. 184, 185.
[302] Antiq. Brit. c. 11, p. 179, 180. Carte, t. 1, p. 288.
[303] Carte, p. 184, 186, thinks the Alleluiah victory
gained over the Picts and the Saxons, and the other
transactions of St. Germanus in Wales, happened in his
second mission. For SS. Dubricius and Iltutus, whom he
ordained bishops, lived beyond the year 512, according
to some until 527 or even 540. Sir Henry Spelman and
Wilkins (Conc. Brit. t. 1, p. 1), on this account place
the synod of Verulam held by St. Germanus against the
Pelagians in 446.
[304] Bede, Hist. l. 1, c. 21. Bollandus and Henschenius in
vitâ S. Theliau ad 9 Februarij, &c.
[305] Stillingfleet, Orig. Britan. p. 349.
[306] Or. 3, de Imag.
[307] Ecclus. xxxviii. 1, 2.
[308] 4 Kings xx. 7. See Syn. Critic. and Mead, De Morbis
Biblicis, c. 5.
[309] Serm. 22, in Ps. 118.
[310] Regul. fus. explic.
[311] Ep. 345, ol. 321, p. 316, et in Cant.
[312] See Estius in Eccli. xxxviii.
[313] Ephes. v. 29, Aug. ep. 130, ol. 121, ad Probam.
[314] 2 Paral. xv. 12.
[315] Paulin. Nat. 9, or Carm. 24.
[316] Horat. l. 1, od. 3.
[317] _Pueri._ See Diss. de SS. 7, Dormient. c. 18, p. 65,
et c. 6, p. 11. The Menology of the emperor Basil,
printed at Rome in 1727, &c.
[318] Spon, Voyage d’Italie et du Levant, t. 1, l. 3, p. 327.
[319] St. Paulin. Carm. 24, and ep. 12. On the relics of St.
Nazarius at Milan, see the life of St. Charles Borromeo,
by Guissiano, in the new Latin edition, l. 5, c. 9.
p. 435, and the notes of Oltrocci, ibid.
[320] S. Bas. hom. de S. Gordio.
[321] S. Epiph. Hær. 54. Eus. l. 5, c. 28. Conc. t. 1.
Theodoret, Hæret. Fabul. l. 2, c. 5.
[322] Eus. l. 5, c. 17. St. Hier. ep. 54, ad Marcel. Tert.
l. de Fugâ, de Pudic., &c.
[323] Tert. l. adv. Praxeam.
[324] S. Epiph. Hær. 46. S. Iren. l. 1, c. 31. Clem. Alex.
Strom. l. 3, p. 465.
[325] Tatian’s Oration against the Greeks is extant. In it he
displays much profane erudition, showing that Moses was
older than the Gentile philosophers, who borrowed the
sciences from the patriarchs. He wrote this piece after
the death of Saint Justin, but before his separation
from the Church: for in it he proves one God the
Creator of all things, and seems to approve the state
of matrimony. It wants method; but the style is elegant
enough, though exuberant, and not very elaborate. This
piece is often published at the end of the works of St.
Justin. We have an accurate separate edition, printed
at Oxford in 1700, with notes and dissertations, by
the care of Mr. William Worth, archdeacon of Worcester.
P. Travasa in his learned history of heresiarchs,
demonstrates against Massuet, &c., that Tatian’s
Oration against the Gentiles is not orthodox; and that
in it the author teaches that the human soul is of its
own nature mortal. See Travasa Storia Critica delle
vite degli eresiarchi, t. 2, at Venice, 1760.
[326] Ἀκοενωνησίαν ἑπέϛειλεν.
[327] Monti, Cler. Reg. S. Pauli, S. Th. Prof. Mediolani,
Dissertationes Theologico-historicæ tres, quarum prima
propugnat gratiam per se efficacem; Secunda agit de
Canonibus vulgò apostolicis; Tertia versatur super
dissidio de opportuno Paschatis celebrandi tempore.
Papiæ, 1760.
[328] Mem. Eccles. t. 3, p. 112.
[329] From this example, it is manifest, that the African
bishops referred greater causes, at least those of
faith to the holy see, and in them always allowed
appeals to it; though at that time they carried on a
contest with the popes Innocent, Zosimus, and Celestine,
against appeals being made in lesser causes of personal
facts, which it is often difficult to carry on in
remote courts, and which, if too easy and frequent,
are a bar to the speedy execution of justice. Yet such
appeals or revisions of causes are sometimes necessary
to hinder crying injustices and oppressions. Whence
the regulation of the manner of restraining appeals in
smaller ecclesiastical causes is a point of discipline;
but the general council of Sardica, which was an
appendix of the council of Nice, declared, that appeals
must be allowed from the whole world to the bishops of
Rome; and in this discipline the Africans soon after
acquiesced.
[330] St. Aug. Serm. 131, n. 10.
[331] _Dole_ in the old British language signifies a low
fruitful plain.
[332] Tours, which was the metropolis of the province of
Armorica under the Romans, enjoyed, from the time of
St. Martin, the metropolitical jurisdiction over Mans,
Angers, and the nine bishoprics of Brittany. Sampson
the elder, bishop of York, being expelled by the Saxons,
came into Armorica, and founded the see of Dole, in
which he exercised a metropolitical jurisdiction, which
king Howel or Rioval obliged him to assert, because
these Britons were an independent people, separate from
the Gauls. Sampson’s two successors, St. Turiave and
St. Sampson, enjoyed the same. The contest between
Tours and Dole was not finished till Innocent III.
In 1199, declared Dole and all the other bishoprics
of Brittany subject to the archbishop of Tours. See
D. Morice, Hist. de Bretagne, p. 17, &c.
[333] Luke x. 38.
[334] Ibid.
[335] Cant. ii.
[336] 3, p. 9, 40, a. l. ad 2 et 3. Item 2, 2dæ. q. 182,
art. 1 et 2, in corp.
[337] L. de Perfect. Religios.
[338] Mat. xxvi.; John xii.
[339] Unicum mihi negotium est; aliud non curo quam ne
curem. Tert. l. de Pallio, c. 5.
[340] See the Chronicle of Norway by Snorro Sturleson, first
magistrate in the republic of Iceland in 1240.
[341] _Scot_ and _lot_ are originally Swedish or Teutonic
words, signifying tax. Romescot is a tax for Rome, and
Scot-Konung, the king’s tax. See baron Holberg, and
Mess. Scondia illustrata, t. 1.
[342] Aringhi Roma Subterranea, l. 1, c. 25.
[343] Noris, Diss. 3, de Epochis Syro-Macedonum.
[344] Apol. c. 21.
[345] Plato in Phædo.
[346] Act. ii.
[347] Act. xvi. 26.
[348] Constantine Cajetan, a Benedictin of the Congregation
of Mount Cassino, pretends this book to have been first
written by Gracias Cisneros or Swan, a Benedictin abbot
of Montserrat. But the work of that pious and learned
abbot is a very different piece, as is evident to every
one that will compare the two books, and as Pinius
demonstrates. That of Cisneros is indeed full of
unction and spiritual knowledge; but compiled in
a scholastic method, and runs into superfluous
subdivisions. The meditations of St. Ignatius are
altogether new, and written upon a different plan.
He appoints, for the foundation of these exercises, a
moving meditation on the end for which we are created,
that we fully convince ourselves that nothing is
otherwise to be valued, sought, or enjoyed, than
as it conduces to the honor and service of God. The
meditations on the fall of the angels and of man, on
the future punishments of sin, and on the last things,
show us the general effects of sin. To point out the
particular disorders of our passions, and to purge our
hearts of them, he represents to us the two standards
of Christ and the devil, and all men ranging themselves
under the one or the other, that we may be moved
ardently to make our choice with the generous souls
that follow Christ. Then he proposes what this
resolution requires, and how we are to express in
ourselves the perfect image of our Saviour, by the
three degrees of humility, by meditating on the
mysteries of Christ’s life, and by choosing a state
of life, and regulating our employments in it. By
meditating on Christ’s sufferings, he will have us
learn the heroic virtues of meekness and charity, &c.,
he taught us by them to fortify our souls against
contradictions; and by those on his glorious mysteries,
and on the happiness of divine love, he teaches us to
unite our hearts closely to God. See Bartoli, l. 1, &c.
[349] Exerc. Spir. Max. 2, 3.
[350] Ego vobis Romæ propitius ero. See F. Bouhours, b. 3.
[351] There is another religious Order, very famous in Italy,
established for the education of youth, called the
Regular Clergy of the _Schola Pia_. The founder was
F. Joseph Cazalana, a nobleman of Arragon. He took
priestly orders in 1582, and, going to Rome, devoted
himself with great fervor to the heroic practice of all
good works, especially to the catechising and teaching
of children. To propagate this design, he instituted a
congregation of priests, approved by Paul V. in 1617,
and declared a religious Order with ample privileges,
by Gregory XV. in 1621. These religious men bind
themselves by a fourth vow, to labor in instructing
children, especially the poor. The holy founder died in
1648, on the 25th of August.
[352] He appointed no other habit than that used by the
clergy in his time, the more decently and courteously
to converse with all ranks of people, and because he
instituted an order only of regular clerks. He would
not have his religious to keep choir, because he
destined their time to evangelical functions. He
ordered all, before they are admitted, to employ a
month for a general confession and a spiritual exercise.
After this, two years in a novitiate; then to take the
simple vows of scholars, binding themselves to poverty,
chastity, and obedience, which vows make them strictly
religious men; for by them a person in this Order
irrevocably consecrates himself to God on his side,
though the Order does not bind itself absolutely to
him, and the general has power to dismiss him; by
which discharge he is freed from all obligation to the
Society, his first vows being made under this condition.
These simple vows are only made in the presence of
domestics. The professed Jesuits make these same vows
again (commonly after all their studies) but publicly,
and without the former condition; so that these second
are solemn vows, absolutely binding on both sides:
wherefore a professed Jesuit can be no more dismissed by
his Order, so as to be discharged from his obligations
by which he is tied to it. In these last is added a
fourth vow of undertaking any missions, whether among
the faithful or infidels, if enjoined them by the pope.
There is a class of Jesuits who take the other vows,
without this last relating to the missions; and these
are called spiritual coadjutors. So this Order consists
of four sorts of persons; scholars or Jesuits of the
first vows; professed Jesuits or of the last or four
vows; spiritual coadjutors, and temporal coadjutors.
No particular bodily mortifications are prescribed by
the rule of the Society; but two most perfect practices
of interior mortification are rigorously enjoined, on
account of which Suarez (t. 3, de Relig.) who treats at
length of the obligations of their Order, calls it the
most rigorous of religious Orders; the first is, the
rule of Manifestation, by which every one is bound to
discover his interior inclinations to his superior; the
second is, that every Jesuit renounces his right to his
own reputation with his superior, giving leave to every
brother to inform immediately his superior of all his
faults he knows, without observing the law of private
correction first, which is a precept of fraternal
charity, unless where a person has given up his right.
The general nominates the provincial and rectors;
but he has five assistants nominated by the general
congregation, who prepare all matters to his hands,
each for the province of his assistency; and these have
authority to call a general congregation to depose the
general if he should evidently transgress the rules of
the Society. Every provincial is obliged to write to
the general once every month, and once in three years
transmit to him an account of all the Jesuits in his
province. The perfect form of government which is
established, the wisdom, the unction, the zeal, and the
consummate knowledge of men, which appear throughout
all these constitutions, will be a perpetual manifest
monument of the saint’s admirable penetration, judgment,
and piety. He wrote his constitutions in Spanish, but
they were done into Latin by his secretary, father
John Polancus. It is peculiar to the Society, that the
religious, after their first vows, retain some time
the dominion or property of their patrimony, without
the administration (for this later condition is now
essential to a religious vow of poverty), till they
make their renunciation.
St. Ignatius forbade the fathers of his Society to
undertake the direction of nunneries on the following
occasion. In 1545, Isabel Rozella, a noble Spanish
widow, and two others, with the approbation of pope
Paul III. put themselves under St. Ignatius’s direction,
to live according to his rule; but he soon repented
and procured from his Holiness, in 1547, the abovesaid
prohibition, saying, that such a task took up all that
time which he desired to dedicate to a more general
good in serving many. When certain women in Flanders
and Piedmont afterward assembled in houses under vows
and this rule, and called themselves Jesuitesses, their
institute was abolished by Urban VIII. in 1631, the
end and exercises of this society not suiting that sex.
[353] See his edifying life by Raderus and Sacchini.
[354] Bouhours, l. 4. Orlandin. Hist. Soc. l. 7, c. 25.
[355] The value of this treasure is enhanced by the elegant
dress by which it is set off in the French translation
of the abbé Regnier des Marais, three volumes in 4to.
four in 8vo. and six in 12mo. The devout abbé Tricalet
gave a good abridgment of this excellent work, printed
in 1760. The translation of Rodrigues made by the
gentlemen of Port-Royal is faulty in several places,
particularly, Tr. 1, c. 10.
[356] Orland. Hist. Soc. l. 16.
[357] Extant to Bartoli, l. 4, p. 372.
[358] L. 4, n. 29, 355.
[359] Bayle makes exceptions to the miracles of St. Ignatius
because Ribadeneira, in the first life of this saint,
which he wrote in 1572, inquires why his sanctity was
not equally attested by wonderful miracles as that of
the founders of some other Orders. “Quamobrem illius
sanctitas minus est testata miraculis,” &c. But in this
very edition, in the last chapter, p. 209, he writes:
“Mihi tantum abest ut ad vitam Ignatii illustrandam
miracula deesse videantur, ut multa eaque præstantissima
judicem in mediâ luce versari.” He then recapitulates
some facts which he had before related, and which he
esteems miraculous, as a rapture in which the saint
continued for eight days; so many wonderful, heavenly
illuminations and revelations; the restoration of
F. Simon, who lay dangerously sick, to his health,
pursuant to his prediction; the wonderful deliverance
of a demoniac; the cures of several sick persons; the
foretelling many particular things to private persons,
&c. The author republished this life in 1587, with some
additions. He afterwards wrote a Latin abstract of this
first life, in which he inserted many miracles. This
he calls “Alteram breviorem vitam, sed multis ac novas
miraculis auctam.” In this he tells us, that he had
before been more cautious in relating miracles, because
they had not yet been examined and approved; but that
he chose some which were esteemed miraculous, not in
the opinion of the common people, but in the judgment
of prudent persons. See this remark also in the Spanish
abstract of this life, published in 1604; and in the
Latin abstract reprinted at Ipres in 1612. In his
Spanish life of St. Ignatius, among his lives of saints,
printed in 1604, he writes thus: “Though, when I first
printed his life in 1572, I knew of some miracles of
the holy father, I did not look upon them to be so
verified (averiguados) as to think that I ought to
publish them, which afterward, by the authentical
informations taken for his canonization, were proved
true by credible witnesses; and the Lord, who is
pleased to exalt him, and make him glorious on earth,
works daily such miracles on his account as oblige me
to relate part of them here, taken from the original
juridical informations which several bishops have made,
and from the depositions made upon oath by the persons
on whom the miracles were wrought,” &c. Ribad. Spanish
lives, p. 1124. Moreover, Ribadeneira mentions in his
first and second edition of this life, prophecies,
revelations, visions, and the like miraculous favors,
and he expressly distinguishes these from the gift of
miracles, by which he means miraculous cures and the
like, though the former may be justly placed in the
general class of miracles. If the works of Ribadeneira
on this subject be all carefully perused, it will be
easy to discern the scrupulous accuracy of the author
in this point; and the candid reader will be convinced
how much some have misrepresented his testimony. Nor
was he allowed to publish miracles before they had been
approved, as the Council of Trent severely ordained.
(Sess. 25, de Inv. Sanct.) See on it Julius Nigronius
(Disp. Hist. de SS. Ignatio et Cajetano, n. 57) and
Pinius the Bollandist in his confutation of this
slander.
In the relation made in the secret consistory before
Gregory XV. of miracles which had been examined and
approved by the cardinal à Monte and other commissaries,
are mentioned the supernatural light shining on his
face at prayer, upon the testimony of St. Philip Neri
and F. Oliver Manerius. That St. Ignatius, by his
blessing and prayer, cured one Bastida of the falling
sickness, and the hand of a cook miserably burnt;
delivered Pontanus from most violent temptations with
which he had been grievously molested for two years,
&c.: but the miracles which are chiefly attended to
in a canonization, are those which have been performed
after the person’s death. Of such, many manifest ones
were approved, first by the Auditors of the Rota, and
afterward by the Congregation of Rites. Among these
are mentioned the following: Isabel Rabelles, a nun of
Barcelona, sixty-seven years old, in 1601, had broken
her thigh-bone; and being attended by a physician and
surgeon during forty days, and under grievous pains and
a violent fever, was expected to die that night, and
given over as to all natural remedies; when by applying
a relic of St. Ignatius, and saying the Lord’s Prayer
and Hail Mary, with an invocation of this saint, the
swelling of the thigh and leg went down, she found
herself able to stir both, and without any pain; and
calling for her clothes she got up, walked perfectly,
and with ease, and felt no more of her complaint,
not even at new moons or in the dampest seasons. Anne
Barozellona, at Valladolid, almost sixty years old, was
cured of a desperate palsy by invoking St. Ignatius,
with a vow to perform a novena. A widow who had
lost her sight in both her eyes, recovered it by
recommending herself to the prayers of Saint Ignatius,
and touching her eyes with a relic, &c. F. Jos. Juvency
(Hist. Soc. Jesu, l. 15, part 5, § 9) has selected and
related many like miracles of St. Ignatius. F. Daniel
Bartoli, in his life of this saint, has given a history
of a hundred such miracles (l. 5). See also the great
collection made by F. Pinius, the continuation of
Bollandus.
Though cardinal Pole thought circumstances did not
allow him to make any settlement for Jesuits in England,
as the author of the Monastic History of Ireland and
others take notice, that great and holy man highly
esteemed St. Ignatius and his Institute. See a letter
of Saint Ignatius to cardinal Pole dated at Rome, 24th
of January, 1555, and that cardinal’s answer to him
from Richmond, 8th of May; and another from London,
15th of December the same year; also his letter of
condolence to F. Lainez upon the death of St. Ignatius,
dated at London, 15th of November, 1556, published
among the letters of cardinal Pole collected by cardinal
Querini at Brescia, t. 5, p. 117, 118, 119, 120, 121.
[360] The Jesuats of St. Jerom were at first all lay brothers,
and practised pharmacy; but, in 1606, obtained leave
of Paul V. to study and take holy orders. The houses
of the friars being reduced, they were suppressed by
Clement IX. in 1668; but some nunneries of this Order
still subsist in Italy. See the life of this saint,
and those of other illustrious persons of this Order,
written by Moriggia, a pious general of the same, who
died in 1604. Also the Bollandists and Helyot.