Chapter XIX: Part 19

On humility, the following maxims are recorded among
his sayings: “No man can attain to the knowledge of God
but by humility. The way to mount high is to descend;
for all dangers and all great falls which ever happened
in the world, were caused by pride, as is evident
in the angel in heaven, in Adam in Paradise, in the
Pharisee mentioned in the gospel; and all spiritual
advantages arose from humility, as we see in the
Blessed Virgin, the good thief, &c. Would to God some
great weight laid upon us obliged us always to hold
down our heads.” When a certain brother asked him;
“How can we fly this cursed pride?” he answered; “If we
consider the benefits of God, we must humble ourselves,
and bow down our heads. And if we consider our sins, we
must likewise humble ourselves, and bow down our heads.
Wo to him who seeks honor from his own confusion and
sin. The degrees of humility in a man are, that he know
that whatever is of his own growth is opposite to his
good. A branch of this humility is, that he give to
others what is theirs, and never appropriate to himself
what belongs to another; that is, that he ascribe to
God all his good and all advantages which he enjoys;
and acknowledge that all his evil is of his own growth.
Blessed is he who accounts himself as mean and base
before men as he is before God. Blessed is he who walks
faithfully in obedience to another. He who desires to
enjoy inward peace, must look upon every man as his
superior, and as better and greater before God. Blessed
is he who knows how to keep and conceal the favors
of God. Humility knows not how to speak, and patience
dares not speak, for fear of losing the crown of
suffering by complaints, in a firm conviction that a
person is always treated above his deserts. Humility
dispels all evil, is an enemy to all sin, and makes a
man nothing in his own eyes. By humility a man finds
grace before God, and peace with men. God bestows the
treasures of his grace on the humble, not on the proud.
A man ought always to fear from pride, lest it cast him
down headlong. Always fear and watch over yourself. A
man who deserves death, and who is in prison, how comes
it that he does not always tremble? A man is of himself
poverty and indigence; rich only by the divine gifts;
these then he must love, and despise himself. What is
greater than for a man to be sensible what he owes to
God, and to cover himself with confusion, self-reproach,
and self-reprehension for his own evils? I wish we
could have studied this lesson from the beginning of
the world to the end. How much do we stand indebted
to him who desires to deliver us from all evil, and to
confer upon us all good.” Against vain-glory he used to
say;--“If a person was sunk in extreme poverty, covered
all over with wounds, half-clad in tattered rags, and
without shoes; and men should come to him, and saluting
him with honor say: ‘All admire you, my lord; you are
wonderfully rich, handsome, and beautiful; and your
clothes are splendid and handsome;’ must not he have
lost his senses, who should be pleased with such a
compliment, or think himself such, knowing that he is
the very reverse?”

The servant of God was remarkable for his meekness and
charity, and he used to say, “We can appropriate to
ourselves our neighbor’s good, and make it also our own;
for the more a person rejoices at his neighbor’s good,
the more does he share in it. If therefore you desire
to share in the advantages of all others, rejoice more
for them all; and grieve for every one’s misfortunes.
This is the path of salvation, to rejoice in every
advantage and to grieve for every misfortune of
your neighbor; to see and acknowledge your evils and
miseries, and to believe only good of others; to honor
others, and despise yourself. We pray, fast, and labor;
yet lose all this if we do not bear injuries with
charity and patience. If we take so much pains to
attain to virtue, why do not we learn to do what is
so easy? you must bear the burdens of all, because
you have no just reason of complaint against any one,
seeing you deserve to be chastised and treated ill by
all creatures. You desire to escape reproaches and
condemnation in the next world, yet would be honored
in this. You refuse to labor or bear anything here, yet
desire to enjoy rest hereafter. Strive more earnestly
to vanquish your passions, and bear tribulations and
humiliations. It is necessary to overcome yourself,
whatever you do. It avails your soul little to draw
others to God unless you die to yourself.”

On prayer, which this servant of God made his constant
occupation and delight, he used to say,--“Prayer
is the beginning and the consummation of all good.
Every sinner must pray that God may make him know his
miseries and sins, and the divine benefits. He who
knows not how to pray, knows not God. All who are to
be saved, if they have attained the use of reason, must
set themselves to pray. Though a woman were ever so
bashful and simple, if she saw her only son taken from
her by the king’s orders for some crime, she would tear
her breasts, and implore his mercy. Her love and her
son’s extreme danger and miseries would make her never
want words to entreat him.”

The fruits and graces of perfect prayer he summed up
as follows: 1. “By it a man is enlightened in his
understanding. 2. He is strengthened in faith and in
the love of all good. 3. He learns to know and feel
his own miseries. 4. He is penetrated with holy fear,
is humble and contemptible in his own eyes. 5. His
heart is pierced with compunction. 6. Sweet tears
flow in abundance. 7. His heart is cleansed. 8. His
conscience purged. 9. He learns obedience. 10. Attains
to the perfect spirit of that virtue. 11. To spiritual
science. 12. To spiritual understanding. 13. Invincible
fortitude. 14. Patience. 15. Spiritual wisdom. 16. The
knowledge of God, who manifests himself to those who
adore him in spirit and truth. Hence love is kindled in
the soul, she runs in the odor of his sweet perfumes,
is drowned in the torrent of his sweetness, enjoys
perfect interior peace, and is brought to immortal
glory.”

[147] Vita B. Ægidii apud Papebroke, t. 3, Aprilis ad diem 23,
p. 236.

[148] Conc. t. 11, p. 237.

[149] The emperor Michael dying in 1283, his son Andronicus
renewed the schism, and restored the deposed patriarch
Joseph.

[150] Possevin. Apparatus sacer, t. 1, p. 245.

[151] Gerson calls St. Bonaventure both a cherub and a seraph,
because his writings both enlighten and inflame. His
order makes his doctrine the standard of their schools,
according to a decree of pope Pius V. To the works of
St. Bonaventure these divines add the double comments
of Scotius on Aristotle and the Master of the Sentences.

Peter Lombard, a native of Novara in Lombardy, was
recommended by St. Bernard (ep. 366) to Gilduin, first
abbot of the regular canons of St. Victor’s at Paris,
performed there his studies, professed that order, and
was one of those who, by an order of abbot Suger, king
Louis VII. and pope Eugenius III. in 1147, were sent
from St. Victor’s to St. Genevieve’s in place of the
secular canons. Eudes or Odo, one of this number, was
chosen first regular abbot of St. Genevieve’s, on whose
eminent virtues see the pious F. Gourdan, in his MS.
history of the eminent men of St. Victor’s, in 7 vols.
folio, t. 2, p. 281. Peter Lombard taught theology at
St. Genevieve’s, till in 1159 he was made bishop of
Paris. Gourdan, ib. t. 2, p. 79 and 80. He died, bishop
of that city, in 1164. He compiled a body of divinity,
collected from the writings of the fathers, into four
books, called Of the Sentences, from which he was
surnamed The Master of the Sentences. This work he is
said by some to have copied chiefly from the writings
of Blandinus his master, and others. (See James
Thomasius De Plagio literario, from sect. 493 to 502.)
Though it be not exempt from inaccuracies, the method
appeared so well adapted to the purposes of the
schoolmen that they followed the same and for their
lectures gave comments on these four books of the
Sentences. Among these, St. Thomas Aquinas stands
foremost. The divines of the Franciscan Order take
for their guides St. Bonaventure and John Duns Scotus.
This latter was born in Northumberland, and entered
young into the Order of St. Francis at Newcastle. He
performed his studies, and afterward taught divinity at
Oxford, where he wrote his Commentaries on the Master
of the Sentences, which were thence called his Oxonian
Commentaries. He was called to Paris about the year
1304, and in 1307 was appointed by his Order, Regent of
their theological schools in that University, where he
published his Reportata in Sententias, called his Paris
Commentaries, which are called by Dr. Cave a rough or
unfinished abstract of his Oxford Commentaries. For
the subtilty and quickness of his understanding, and
his penetrating genius, he was regarded as a prodigy.
Being sent by his Order to Cologne in 1308, he was
received by the whole city in procession, but died
on the 8th of November the same year, of an apoplexy,
being forty-three, or as others say, only thirty-four
years old. The fable of his being buried alive is
clearly confuted by Luke Wading, the learned Irish
Franciscan, who published his work, with notes,
in twelve tomes, printed at Lyons in 1636. Natalis
Alexander, a most impartial inquirer into this dispute,
and others, have also demonstrated that story to have
been a most groundless fiction. Wading, Colgan, &c.,
say that Duns Scotus was an Irishman, and born at Down
in Ulster. John Major, Dempster, and Trithemius say he
was a Scotchman, born at Duns, eight miles from England.
But Leland, Wharton, Cave, and Tanner, prove that
he was an Englishman and a native of Dunstone, by
contraction Duns, a village in Northumberland, in the
parish of Emildun, then belonging to Merton-hall in
Oxford, of which hall he was afterward a member. This
is attested in the end of several manuscript copies of
his Comments on the Sentences, written soon after the
time when he lived, and still shown at Oxford in the
colleges of Baliol and Merton. That he was a Scotchman
or an Irishman, no author seems to have asserted before
the sixteenth century, as Mr. Wharton observes. (See
Cave, t. 2, Append. p. 4. Wood, Athen. Oxon. Sir James
Ware de Script. Hibern. c. 10, p. 64. Tanner de Script.
Brit. V. Duns. Wading, in the life of Scotus, prefixed
to his works.)

William Ockham, a native of Surrey, also a Grey Friar,
a scholar of Duns Scotus at Paris, disagreeing from his
master in opinions, raised hot disputes in the schools,
and became the head or leader of the Nominals, a sect
among the schoolmen who in philosophy explain things
chiefly by the properties of terms; and maintain that
words, not things, are the object of dialectic, in
opposition to the others called Realists. Ockham
was provincial of his Order in England in 1322, and
according to Wood (Hist. et Ant. l. 2, p. 87) wrote
a book On the Poverty of Christ, and other treatises
against Pope John XXII., by whom he was excommunicated.
He became a warm abettor of the schism of Louis of
Bavaria, and his antipope, Peter Corbarius, and died
at Munich in 1347. He is said also to have favored
the heresy of the Fratricelli, introduced by certain
Grey Friars in the marquisate of Ancona, who made all
perfection to consist in a seeming poverty, rebelled
against the Church, and railed at the pope and the
other pastors. Flying into Germany, they were favored
by Louis of Bavaria, and in return supported his schism.
They at length rejected the sacraments as useless. Akin
to these were the Beguards and Beguines, an heretical
sect formed by several poor laymen and women, who, some
by an ill-governed devotion and a love of a lazy life,
others out of a spirit of libertinism, would needs
imitate the poverty of the Friars Mendicants, without
being tied to obedience, or living under superiors.
They at length fell into many extravagant errors, and
became a society of various notions and opinions, which
had nothing common but the hatred they bore to the pope
and other prelates, and the affectation of a voluntary
poverty, under which they covered an infinite number
of disorders and crimes. Such are the baneful fruits
of self-conceit.

[152] St. Bonav. Specul. Novit. p. 2, c. 2.

[153] Tit. de Aleatoribus tam in Digesto quam in Codice.

[154] See St. Bonav. in 4, dis. 14. St. Raymund. St. Antonin.
Comitolus, l. 3, 7, 9, p. 348, &c. Aristotle (l. 4,
Ethic. c. 1.) places gamesters in the same class with
highwaymen and plunderers. St. Bernardin of Sienna
(Serm. 33, Domin. 5, Quadrag. t. 4), says they are
worse then robbers, because more treacherous, and
covering their rapine under seducing glosses.

[155] Job ii. 4.

[156] On the methods of varying every day these acts, see
Polancus, De modo juvandi morientes; Joan. a S. Thoma.
Card. Bona. &c.

[157] Apoc. xii. 12.

[158] Cicat. l. 2, c. 1, p. 446.

[159] This observation of St. Camillus has been since
confirmed by many instances of persons who were found
to have been buried alive, or to have recovered long
after they had appeared to have been dead. Accounts of
several such examples are found in many modern medical
and philosophical memoirs of literature which have
appeared during this century, especially in France and
Germany; and experience evinces the case to have been
frequent. Boerhaave (Not. in Instit. Medic.) and some
other men whose names stand among the foremost in
the list of philosophers, have demonstrated by many
undoubted examples, that where the person is not dead,
an entire cessation of breathing and of the circulation
of the blood may happen for some time, by a total
obstruction in the organical movements of the springs
and fluids of the whole body, which obstruction
may sometimes be afterwards removed, and the vital
functions restored. Whence the soul is not to be
presumed to leave the body in the act of dying, but
at the moment in which some organ or part of the body
_absolutely_ essential to life is _irreparably_ decayed
or destroyed. Nor can any certain mark be given
that a person is dead till some evident symptom of
putrefaction commenced appears sensible.

Duran and some other eminent surgeons in France, in
memorials addressed, some to the French king, others to
the public, complain that two customs call for redress,
first, that of burying multitudes in the churches, by
which experience shows that the air is often extremely
infected; the second is that of which we speak. To
prevent the danger of this latter, these authors insist
that no corpse should be allowed to be buried, or
its face close covered, before some certain proof of
putrefaction, for which they assign as usually one of
the first marks, if the lower jaw being stirred does
not restore itself, the spring of the muscles being
lost by putrefaction. See Doctor Bruhier, Mémoire
présenté au Roi, sur la Nécessité d’un Règlement
Général au Sujet des Enterments et Embaumements, in
1745; also Dissertation sur l’Incertitude des Signes
de la Mort, in 1749, 2 vols. in 12mo.; and Dr. Louis,
Lettres sur la Certitude des Signes de la Mort, contre
Bruhier, in 1752, in 12mo.

The Romans usually kept the bodies of the dead eight
days, and practised a ceremony of often calling upon
them by their names, of which certain traces remain in
many places from the old ceremonial for the burial of
kings and princes. Servabantur cadavera octo diebus,
et calida abluebantur, et post ultimam conclamationem
abluebantur. Servius in Virgilii Æneidon, l. 8,
ver. 2, 8. The corpse was washed whilst warm, and again
after the last call addressed to the deceased person,
which was the close of the ceremony before the corpse
was burnt or interred; and to be deprived of it was
esteemed a great misfortune. Corpora nondum conclamata
jacent, Lucan. l. 2, ver. 22. Jam defletus et
conclamatus es. Apuleius, l. 1, Metam. et l. 11, ib.
Desine, jam conclamatum est. Terent. Eunuch. 2, 3,
ver. 56. St. Zeno of Verona, describing a wife who
immoderately laments her deceased husband, says:
Cadaver amplectitur conclamatum. St. Zeno, l. 1,
Trac. 16, p. 126, nov. ed. Veron. This ceremony,
trivial in itself, was of importance to ascertain
publicly the death of the person.

[160] The empire of the West, which had been extinguished
in Augustulus, was restored in the year 800, in the
person of Charlemagne, king of France, who extended
his conquests into part of Spain, almost all Italy, all
Flanders and Germany, and part of Hungary. The imperial
crown continued some time in the different branches of
his family, sometimes in France, sometimes in Germany,
and sometimes in both united under the same monarch.
Louis IV. the eighth hereditary emperor of the Franks,
was a weak prince, and died in the twentieth year of
his age, in 912, without leaving any issue. These
emperors, in imitation of the Lombards, had created
several petty sovereigns in their states, who grew
very powerful. These princes declared that by the death
of Louis IV. the imperial dignity was devolved on the
Germanic people; and excluding Charles the Simple, king
of France, the next heir in blood of the Carlovingian
race, elected Conrad I. duke of Franconi: and after him
Henry I. surnamed the Fowler, duke of Saxony, who was
succeeded by three Othos of the same family of Saxony.
After St. Henry II. several emperors (the following
Henries, and two Frederics in particular) were of the
Franconian family. Rodolph I. of the house of Austria
was chosen in 1273. There have been four dukes of
Bavaria emperors, five of the house of Luxemburg,
three of the old Bohemian royal house, &c. But in 1438,
Albert II. duke of Austria and marquis of Moravia, was
raised to that supreme dignity, which from that time
has remained chiefly in that family. The ancient ducal
house of Saxony was descended from Wittekind the Great,
the last elected king of the Saxons, who afterwards
sustained a long obstinate war against Pepin and
Charlemagne, submitted to the latter, and being
baptized by St. Lullus in 785, was created by
Charlemagne, first duke of Saxony. St. Henry II. was
the fifth Emperor of the Saxon race, descended from
Wittekind the Great.

[161] On the authenticity of this diploma of Henry II. and
also of those of Pepin, Charlemagne, and Otho I. see
the Dissertation of the Abbé Cenni, entitled, Esame de
Diploma d’Ottone è S. Arrigo, printed at Rome in 1754.

That the see of Rome was possessed of great riches,
even during the rage of the first persecutions, is
clear from the acts of universal charity performed
by the popes, mentioned by St. Dionysius of Corinth,
and after the persecutions by St. Basil and St. John
Climacus. From the reign of Constantine the Great, many
large possessions were bestowed on the popes for the
service of the Church. Conni (Esame di Diploma di
Ludovico Pio) shows in detail from St. Gregory the
Great’s epistles, that the Roman see, in his time,
enjoyed very large estates, with a very ample civil
jurisdiction, and a power of punishing delinquents in
them by deputy judges, in Sicily, Calabria, Apulia,
Campania, Ravenna, Sabina, Dalmatia, Illyricum,
Sardinia, Corsica, Liguria, the Alpes Cottiæ, and a
small estate in Gaul. Some of these estates comprised
several bishoprics, as appears from St. Gregory, l. 7,
ep. 39, Indict. ii.

The Alpes Cottiæ that belonged to the popes included
Genoa and the sea-coast from that town to the Alps,
the boundaries of Gaul, as Thomassin (l. 1, de Discipl.
Eccl. c. 27, n. 17.) takes notice, and as Baronius (ad
an. 712, p. 9.) proves from the testimony of Oldradus,
bishop of Milan. And Paul the deacon writes, that
the Lombards seized the Alpes Cottiæ, which were the
estates of the Roman see. “Patrimonium Alpium Cottiarum
quæ quondam ad jus pertinuerant apostolicæ sedis,
sed a Longobardis multo tempore fuerant ablatæ.” (Paul.
Diac. l. 6, c. 43.) Father Cajetan, in his Isagoge ad
Historiam Siculam, points out at length the different
estates which the Roman see formerly possessed in
Sicily. The popes were charged with a great share of
the care of the city and civil government of Rome. St.
Gregory the Great mentions that it was part of their
duty to provide that the city was supplied with corn,
(l. 5, ep. 40, alias l. 4, ep. 31, ad Maurit.) and that
he was obliged to watch against the stratagems of the
enemies, and the treachery of the Roman generals and
governors. (l. 5, ep. 42, alias l. 4, ep. 35.) And
he appointed Constantius a tribune to be governor of
Naples. (l. 2, ep. 11, alias ep. 7.) Anastasius the
Librarian testifies that the popes Sisinnius and
Gregory II. both repaired the walls of Rome and put
the city in a posture of defence.

From these and other facts Thomassin observes that the
popes had then the chief administration of the city
of Rome and of the exarchate, made treaties of peace,
averted wars, defended and recovered cities, and
repulsed the enemies. (Thomass. da Benefic. 3, part.
l. 1, c. 29, n. 6.) When the Lombards ravaged and
conquered the country, the emperors continued to
oppress the people with exorbitant taxes, yet being
busy at home against the Saracens, refused to protect
the Romans against the barbarians. Whereupon the people
of Italy, in the time of Gregory II. in 715, chose
themselves in many places leaders and princes, though
that pope exhorted them every where to remain in their
obedience and fidelity to the empire, as Anastasius the
Librarian assures us: “Ne desisterent ab amore et fide
Romani imperii admonebat.”

Leo the Isaurian, and his son Constantine Copronymus
persecuted the Catholics; yet Zachary and Stephen II.
paid them all due obedience and respect in matters
relating to the civil government. Leo threatened to
destroy the holy images and profane the relics of the
apostles at Rome. At which news the people of Rome were
not to be restrained, but having before received with
honor the images of that emperor, according to custom,
they, in a fit of sudden fury, pulled them down.
Pope Stephen II. exhorted the emperor to forbear such
sacrileges and persecutions, and at the same time
gave him to understand the danger of exasperating the
populace, though he did what in him lay to prevent
by entreaties both the profanations threatened by
the emperor, and also the revolt of the people: “Tunc
projecta laureata tua conculcarunt--Aisque: Romam
mittam, et imaginem S. Petri confringam.--Quòd si
quospiam miseris, protestamur, tibi, innocentes sumus
a sanguine quem fusuri sunt.” On the sacrileges and
cruelties exercised by the Iconoclasts in the East, see
the Bollandists, August ix. To prevent the like at Rome,
some of the Greek historians say that pope Gregory II.
withdrew himself and all Italy from the obedience of
the emperor. But Theophanes and the other Greeks were
in this particular certainly mistaken, as Thomassin
takes notice. And Natalis Alexander says: (Diss. 1,
sæc. 8.) “This most learned pope was not ignorant
of the tradition of the fathers from which he never
deviated. For the fathers always taught that subjects
are bound to obey their princes, though infidels or
heretics, in those things which belong to the rights
of the commonwealth.”

The case was, that when the emperors refused to protect
Italy from the barbarians, the popes in the name of
the people, who looked upon them as their fathers and
guardians, and as the head of the commonwealth, sought
protection from the French, as Thomassin observes
(p. 3, de Benef. l. 1, c. 29.) The continuator of
Fredegarius seems to say, that Gregory III. and the
Roman people created Charles Martel Patrician of Rome,
by which title was meant the protection of the Church
and poor, as De Marca (De Concordiâ, l. 3, c. 11,
n. 6.) and Pagi explain it from Paul the deacon. At
last pope Stephen II. going into France to invite Pepin
into Italy, conferred on him the title of Patrician,
but had not recourse to this expedient till the Eastern
empire had absolutely abandoned Italy to the swords of
the Lombards. Pope Zachary made a peace with Luitprand,
king of the Lombards, and afterward a truce with king
Rachis for twenty years. But that prince putting on the
Benedictin habit, his brother and successor Astulphus
broke the treaty. Stephen II. who succeeded Zachary in
752, sent great presents to Astulphus, begging he would
give peace to the exarchate; but could not be heard, as
Anastasius testifies. Whereupon Stephen went to Paris,
and implored the protection of king Pepin, who sent
ambassadors into Lombardy, requiring that Astulphus
would restore what he had taken from the church of
Rome, and repair the damages he had done the Romans.
Astulphus refusing to comply with these conditions,
Pepin led an army into Italy, defeated the Lombards,
and besieged, and took Astulphus in Pavia; but
generously restored him his kingdom on condition he
should live in amity with the pope. But immediately
after Pepin’s departure he perfidiously took up arms,
and in revenge put every thing to fire and sword in the
territories of Rome. This obliged Pepin to return into
Italy, and Astulphus was again beaten and made prisoner
in Pavia. Pepin once more restored him his kingdom, but
threatened him with death if he ever again took up arms
against the pope; and he took from him the exarchate of
Ravenna, of which the Lombard had made himself master,
and he gave it to the holy see in 755, as Eginhard
relates: “Redditam sibi Ravennam et Pentapolim, et
omnem exarchatum ad Ravennam pertinentem, ad S. Petrum
tradidit.” Eginhard, ib. Thomassin observes very justly
that Pepin could not give away dominions which belonged
to the emperors of Constantinople; but that they had
lost all right to them after they had suffered them to
be conquered by the Lombards, without sending succors
during so many years to defend and protect them. These
countries therefore either by the right of conquest
in a just war belonged to Pepin and Charlemagne, who
bestowed them on the popes; or the people became free,
and being abandoned to barbarians had a right to form
themselves into a new government. See Thomassin (p. 3,
de Beneficiis, l. 1, c. 29, n. 9).

It is a principle laid down by Puffendorf, Grotius,
Fontanini, and others, demonstrated by the unanimous
consent of all ancients and moderns, and founded upon
the law of nations, that he who conquers a country in
a just war, nowise untaken for the former possessors,
nor in alliance with them, is not bound to restore
to them what they would not or could not protect and
defend: “Illud extra controversiam est, si jus gentium
respiciamus, quæ hostibus per nos erepta sunt, ea
non posse vindicari ab his qui ante hostes nostros
ea possederant et amiserant.” (Grotius, l. 3, de Jure
belli et pacis, c. 6, 38.) The Greeks had by their
sloth lost the exarchate of Ravenna. If Pepin had
conquered the Goths in Italy, or the Vandals in Africa
before Justinian had recovered those dominions, who
will pretend that he would have been obliged to restore
them to the emperors? Or, if the Britons had repulsed
the Saxons after the Romans had abandoned them to their
fury, might they not have declared themselves a free
people? Or, had not the popes and the Roman people
a right, when the Greeks refused them protection, to
seek it from others? They had long in vain demanded
it of the emperors of Constantinople, before they had
recourse to the French. Thus Anastasius testifies that
pope Stephen II. had often in vain implored the succors
of Leo against Astulphus. “Ut juxta quod ei sæpius
scripserat, cum exercitu ad tuendas has Italiæ partes
modis omnibus adveniret.” The same Anastasius relates,
that when the ambassadors of the Greek emperor demanded
of Pepin the restitution of the countries he had
conquered from the Lombards, that prince answered,
that as he had exposed himself to the dangers of war
merely for the protection of St. Peter’s see, not in
favor of any other person, he never would suffer the
apostolic Church to be deprived of what he had bestowed
on it. Pepin gave to the holy see the city of Rome
and its Campagna; also the exarchate of Ravenna and
Pentapolis, comprising Rimini, Pesaro, Fano, Senigallia,
Ancona, Gubbio, &c. He retained the office of protector
and defender of the Roman church under the title of
Patrician. When Desiderius, king of the Lombards, again
ravaged the lands of the church of Rome, Charlemagne
marched into Italy, defeated his forces, and after a
long siege took Pavia, and extinguished the kingdom
of the Lombards in 773, on which occasion he caused
himself to be crowned king of Italy, with an iron crown,
such as the Goths and Lombards in that country had used,
perhaps as an emblem of strength. Charlemagne confirmed
to pope Adrian I. at Rome, the donation of his father
Pepin. The emperor Charles the Bald and others ratified
and extended the same. Charlemagne having been crowned
emperor of the West at Rome, by pope Leo III. in
800, Irene, who was then empress of Constantinople,
acknowledged him Augustus in 802; as did her successor
the emperor Nicephorus III. The Greeks at the same time
ratified the partition made of the Italian dominions.
This point of history has been so much misrepresented
by some moderns, that this note seemed necessary in
order to set it in a true light. See Cenni’s Monumenta
Dominationis Pontificiæ, in 4to. Romæ, 1760. Also
Orsi’s Dissertation on this subject; Cenni’s Esame di
Diploma, &c. and Jos. Assemani, Hist. Ital. Scriptores,
t. 3, c. 5.

[162] In the partition of the empire between Charlemagne and
Irene, empress of Constantinople, Apulia and Calabria
were assigned to the Eastern empire, and the rest of
Naples to Charlemagne and his successors. Long before
this, in the unhappy reign of the Monothelite emperor
Constans, about the year 660, the Saracens began to
infest Sicily, and soon after became masters of that
island, and also of Calabria and some other parts of
Italy. Otho I. surnamed the Great, drove them out of
Italy, and laid claim to Calabria and Apulia by right
of conquest. The Greeks soon after yielded up their
pretensions to those provinces by the marriage of
Otho II. to Theophania, daughter of Romanus, emperor of
the East, who brought him Apulia and Calabria for her
dowry. Yet the treacherous Greeks joined the Saracens
in those provinces, and again expelled the Germans. But
in 1008, Tancred, a noble Norman, lord of Hauteville,
with his twelve sons, and a gallant army of adventurers,
went from Normandy into Apulia, and had great success
against the Saracens and their confederates the Greeks.
From this time the Normans became dukes of Calabria,
and counts and dukes of Apulia. Robert Guiscard, the
most valiant Norman duke of Apulia, augmented his power
by the conquest of Sicily, Naples, and all the lands
which lie between that city and Latium or the territory
of Rome. In 1130, Roger the Norman was saluted by the
pope, king of both Sicilies.

[163] This Robert loved the Church, and was a wise,
courageous, and learned prince. He wrote sacred hymns,
and among others that which begins “O Constantia
Martyrum;” also, as some say the “Veni Sancte
Spiritus, Et emitte cœlitus” &c., sung in the mass
for Whitsuntide.

[164] At the entry of the cloister of St. Vanne at Verdun,
is hung a picture in which the emperor Saint Henry is
represented laying down his sceptre and crown, and
asking the monastic habit of the holy abbot Richard.
The abbot required of him a promise of obedience, then
commanded him to resume the government of the empire,
upon which a distich was made, in which it is said:
The emperor came hither to live in obedience; and he
practises this lesson by ruling.

[165] Baronius and some others call St. Henry the first
emperor of that name, because Henry I. or the Fowler,
was never crowned by the pope at Rome; without which
ceremony some Italians style an emperor only king of
Germany or emperor elect; though Charles V. was the
last that was so crowned at Rome. St. Henry on his
death-bed recommended to the princes Conrad the Salic,
duke of Franconia, who was accordingly chosen emperor,
was crowned at Rome in 1027, reigned with great piety
and glory, and was buried in the cathedral church at
Spire, which he had built near his own palace. He was
succeeded by his son Henry the Black or III.

[166] S. Fulgent, ep. 6.

[167] N. 11, p. 69.

[168] Critic. Hist. Chron. ad an. 734, n. 4.

[169] Our saint’s colleague St. Wiro (in Irish Bearaidhe) is
honored on the 8th of May. By the Four Masters he is
styled abbot of Dublin; but with the Irish annalists,
bishop and abbot are generally synonymous terms. He
died in 650. See Ware.

St. Plechelm’s other fellow-missionary, St. Otger,
is honored on the 10th of September; he is always
styled deacon, by which it appears that he was never
promoted to the priesthood. From his name and other
circumstances it is thought he was an English-Saxon,
though from the North, probably the southern parts
of Scotland anciently subject to the kings of the
Northumbers. Being desirous to accompany SS. Wiro and
Plechelm to Rome, and in their apostolic missions into
Germany, when Pepin gave the Mount of St. Peter or
of St. Odilia to St. Wiro, the three saints settled
there together and ended their days in that monastery.
Whether St. Otger outlived St. Plechelm is uncertain.
All three were buried in the monastery of Berg, or
of Mount St. Peter or St. Odilia; and their bodies
remained there till, in 858, that monastery was given
by king Lothaire to Hunger, bishop of Utrecht, when the
greatest part of these relics was translated to Utrecht.
Part still remained in the church of Berg, till with
the chapter of canons it was removed to Ruremund. These
relics were hid some time in the civil wars for fear
of the Calvinists, but discovered in 1594, and placed
again above the high altar. The portion at Utrecht
was also hid for a time for fear of the Normans; but
found and exposed to public veneration again by bishop
Baldric. See the life of Saint Otger, with notes by
Bollandus, and the additional disquisitions of Stilting
ad 10 Sept., t. 2, p. 612.

[170] The barbarians who inhabited the northern coasts of
the Baltic were called by one general name Normans;
and the Sclavi, Vandals, and divers other nations were
settled on the southern coast, as Eginhard, Helmold,
and others testify.

[171] The authorities produced by Tho. Rudburn, a monk of
the Old Monastery in Winchester, in 1450, to prove
St. Swithin to have been some time public professor
of divinity at Cambridge, are generally esteemed
suppositions. See Rudburn, l. 3, c. 2, Hist. Maj.
Wintoniensis, apud Wharton, Anglia Sacra, and the
History of the University of Cambridge.

[172] Hearne, Teat. Roffens, p. 269.

[173] See Ingulph. Asser. Redborne.

[174] The value of a mancuse is not known; it is thought to
have been about the same with that of a mark.

[175] Caslen and B. Nicholson falsely call this the life of
St. Swithin, and it appears from Leland that Lantfred
never wrote his life, which himself sufficiently
declares in the history of his miracles. The contrary
seems a mistake in Pits, Bale, and Thomas Rudburn,
p. 223. Rudburn manifestly confounds Wolstan with
Lantfred.

[176] Hist. Major Winton. p. 223. Vita metrice S. Swithuni
per Wolstanum monachum Winton. ib. 2.

[177] At the east end of this cathedral is the place which
in ancient times was esteemed most sacred, underneath
which was the cemetery or resting-place of many saints
and kings who were interred there with great honor.
At present behind the high altar there is a transverse
wall, against which we see the marks where several of
their statues, being very small, were placed with their
names under each pedestal in a row; “Kinglisus Rex. S.
Birinus Ep. Kingwald Rex. Egbertus R. Adulphus (_i. e._
Ethelwolphus) R. Elured R. filius ejus. Edwardus R.
junior Adhelstanus R. filius ejus (Sta. Maria D. Jesus
in the middle). Edredus R. Edgarus R. Alwynus Ep.
Ethelred R. Cnutus R. Hardecanutus R. filius ejus,” &c.
Underneath, upon a fillet were written these verses:

“Corpora Sanctorum hic sunt in pace sepulta;
Ex Meritis quorum fulgent miracula multa.”

At the foot of these, a little eastwards, is a large
flat grave-stone, which had the effigies of a bishop
in brass, said to be that of St. Swithin. See Lord
Clarendon, and Samuel Gale, On the Antiquities of
Winchester, p. 29, 30.

[178] Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, p. 346.

[179] Conc. Nicæn. Can. 15.

[180] That prelate had been educated at Cæsarea, where he
studied with St. Pamphilus the martyr, whose name he
afterward added to his own. He suffered imprisonment
with him for the faith about the year 309, but
recovered his liberty without undergoing any severer
trial, and was chosen archbishop of Cæsarea in 314.
When Arius, in 320, retired from Alexandria into
Palestine, having been deposed from the priesthood
by St. Alexander the year before, Eusebius of Cæsarea
and some other bishops were imposed upon by him,
and received him favorably. Hereupon Arius wrote to
Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom he calls brother to the
other Eusebius of Cæsarea. Eusebius of Nicomedia was
at that time of an advanced age, and had great interest
with Constantine, who after the defeat of Licinius kept
his court some time at Nicomedia as other emperors had
done before him since Dioclesian had begun to reside
in the East. This prelate was crafty and ambitious;
his removal, procured by his intrigues, from his
first see of Berytus to Nicomedia seems to have given
occasion to the canon of the Nicene council, by which
such translations were forbidden. Notwithstanding
which, in defiance of so sacred a law, he afterwards
procured himself to be again translated to the see
of Constantinople, in 338, in the beginning of the
reign of Constantius. The Council of Sardica, in 347,
confirmed the above-mentioned Nicene canon under pain
of the parties being deprived even of lay communion
at their death; but this arch-heretic died in 342.
He openly defended not only the person, but also the
errors of Arius; subscribed the definitions of the
Nicene council for fear of banishment: but three months
after, being the author of new tumults, he was banished
by Constantine, and after three years recalled, upon
giving a confession of faith in which he declared
himself penitent, and professed that he adhered to
the Nicene faith, as Theodoret relates. By this act
of dissimulation he imposed upon the emperor, but he
continued by every base art to support his heresy, and
endeavored to subvert the truth. Eusebius of Cæsarea
held that see from 314 till his death in 339. He was
always closely linked with the ringleaders of the
heresy. Nevertheless, the learned Henry Valois, in
his Prolegomena to his translation of this author’s
Ecclesiastical History, pretends to excuse him from
its errors, though he often boggled at the word
Consubstantial. He certainly was so far imposed upon by
Arius, as to believe that heretic admitted the eternity
of the Divine Word; and in his writings many passages
occur which prove the divinity, and, as to the sense,
the consubstantiality of the Son, whatever difficulties
he formed as to the word. On which account Ceillier
and many others affect to speak favorably, or at least
tenderly of Eusebius in this respect, and are willing
to believe that he did not at least constantly adhere
to that capital error. Yet it appears very difficult
entirely to clear him from it, though he may seem to
have attempted to steer a course between the tradition
of the Church and the novelties of his friends. See
Baronius ad an. 380, Witasse Nat. Alexander, and the
late Treatise in folio, against the Arian heresy,
complied by a Maurist Benedictin monk. Photius, in a
certain work given us by Montfaucon (in Bibl. Coisliana,
p. 358), roundly charges Eusebius with Arianism and
Origenism.

Eusebius, whose conduct was so unconstant and equivocal,
shines to most advantage in his works, especially those
which he composed in defence of Christianity before
the Arian contest arose. The first of these is his
book against Hierocles, who, under Dioclesian, was a
prosecuting judge at Nicomedia, and afterward rewarded
for his cruelty against the Christians with the
government of Egypt. In a book he wrote he made
Apollonius Tyanæus superior to Christ. But Eusebius
demonstrates the history of this magician, written
by Philostratus, when he taught rhetoric at Rome, one
hundred years after the death of that magician, to be
false and contradictory in most of its points, doubtful
in others, and trifling in all. About the time he was
made bishop he conceived a design of two works, which
showed as much the greatness of his genius, as the
execution did the extent of his knowledge. The first
of these he called The Preparation, the other The
Demonstration of the Gospel. In the first he, with
great erudition, confutes idolatry, in fifteen books,
showing that the Greeks borrowed the sciences and many
of their gods from the Egyptians, whose true history
agrees with that of Moses; but the fictions of their
theology are monstrous, impious, and condemned by their
own learned men; that their oracles, which were only
a chain of impostures and frauds, or the responses of
devils, never attained to any infallible knowledge of
contingencies, and were silenced by a power which they
acknowledged superior. He also shows the Unity of God,
and the truth of his revealed religion as ancient as
the world. In his Demonstration of the Gospel, in ten
books, he shows that the Jewish law in every point
clearly points out Christ and the gospel. These books
of Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration furnish
more proofs, testimonies and arguments for the truth
of the Christian religion than any other work of the
ancients on that subject.

Eusebius’s two books against Marcellus of Ancyra, and
three On Ecclesiastical Theology, are a confutation
of Sabellianism. His topography or alphabetical
explication of the places mentioned in the Old
Testament, is most exact and useful. It was translated
into Latin, and augmented by St. Jerom. Eusebius’s
useful comments on the Psalms were published by
Montfaucon (Collect. Nova Script. Græc. Paris, 1706).
His fourteen Discourses, or Opuscula, published by
F. Sirmond (Op. Sirmond, t. 1), are esteemed genuine,
though not mentioned by the ancients. His discourse
on the Dedication of the Church at Tyre, rebuilt after
the persecution in 315, contains a curious description
of that ceremony and of the structure. By his letter
to his Church of Cæsarea, after the conclusion of
the council of Nice, he recommended to his flock the
definitions and creed of that assembly. His panegyric
of Constantine was delivered at Constantinople in
presence of that prince, who then celebrated the
thirtieth year of his reign by public games. The
praises are chiefly drawn from the destruction of
idolatry; but study reigns in this composition more
than nature, and renders the discourse tedious, though
the author took some pains to polish the style. His
four books of the life of Constantine were written in
338, the year after that emperor’s death. The style
is diffusive, and the more disagreeable by being more
labored. Phocius reproaches the author for dissembling
or suppressing the chief circumstances relating to
Arius, and his condemnation in the council of Nice.

The Chronicle of Eusebius was a work of immense
labor, in two parts; the first, called his Chronology,
contained the distinct successions of the kings and
rulers of the principal nations from the beginning of
the world; the second part, called the Chronicle or the
Rule of Times, may be called the table of the first,
and unites all the particular chronologies of different
nations in one. The second part was translated into
Latin, and augmented by St. Jerom. The first part
was lost when Joseph Scaliger gathered the scattered
fragments from George Syncellus, Cedrenus, and the
Alexandrian chronicle; but Scaliger ought to have
pointed out his sources; and has inserted many things
which certainly belong not to Eusebius.

Our author’s name has been rendered most famous by his
ten books of Church History, which he brings down to
the defeat of Licinius, in 323, when he first wrote it,
though he revised it again in 326. He collected the
Acts of the martyrs of Palestine, an abstract of which
he added to the eighth book of his History. Rufinus
elegantly translated this work into Latin, reduced to
nine books, to which he added two others, wherein he
brings down his history to the death of Theodosius.
Eusebius copied very much Julius Africanus in his
chronicle; and in his History, St. Hegesippos (who had
compiled a History from Christ to 170) and others. This
invaluable work is not exempt from some mistakes and
capital omissions; nor was the author much acquainted
with the affairs of the Western Church. See Ceillier,
t. 4, p. 258, &c. Christophorson, bishop of Chichester,
elegantly translated this History into Latin, but
changed the manner of dividing the chapters. The
translation of the learned Henry Valesius is most
accurate. Eusebius was one of the most learned prelates
of antiquity, and a man of universal reading; but he
did not much study to polish his discourses, which is
the common fault of those that make learning and
knowledge their chief business.

[181] Theodoret, l. 1, c. 20, 21. S. Hier., l. 3, in Rufin.,
&c.

[182] Eus., l. 4, de Vit. Constant., c. 61, p. 518.

[183] Sozom., l. 2, c. 19, p. 469.

[184] See Tillemont, Ceillier, Cave, Hist. Littér., p. 187,
t. 1, and Solier, the Bollandist, Hist. Patr. Ant.
c. 24, p. 36.

[185] Theodoret, l. 1, c. 20. Theodorus Lector, l. 2, c. 1,
p. 547. Theophanes, p. 114. See Tillem, note 4, p. 653.

[186] St. Jerom (ep. 126, p. 38) calls St. Eustathius a
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_.