Possevin. Apparatus sacer, t.1, p.245.

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 PiusV. 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 LouisVII. and pope EugeniusIII. 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 7vols. 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 and80. 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 to502.) 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. SirJames 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 JohnXXII., 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.

St.Bonav. Specul. Novit. p.2, c.2.

Tit. de Aleatoribus tam in Digesto quam in Codice.

See St.Bonav. in4, 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.

Job ii.4.

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

Apoc. xii.12.

Cicat. l.2, c.1, p.446.

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, 2vols. in 12mo.; and Dr.Louis, Lettres sur la Certitude des Signes de la Mort, contre Bruhier, in 1752, in12mo.

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.

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. LouisIV. 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 LouisIV. 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 ConradI. duke of Franconi: and after him HenryI. surnamed the Fowler, duke of Saxony, who was succeeded by three Othos of the same family of Saxony. After St.HenryII. several emperors (the following Henries, and two Frederics in particular) were of the Franconian family. RodolphI. 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, AlbertII. 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.HenryII. was the fifth Emperor of the Saxon race, descended from Wittekind the Great.

On the authenticity of this diploma of HenryII. and also of those of Pepin, Charlemagne, and OthoI. 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 GregoryII. 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 GregoryII. 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 StephenII. 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 StephenII. 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, Augustix. To prevent the like at Rome, some of the Greek historians say that pope GregoryII. 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 GregoryIII. 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 StephenII. 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. StephenII. 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 StephenII. 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 AdrianI. 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 LeoIII. in 800, Irene, who was then empress of Constantinople, acknowledged him Augustus in 802; as did her successor the emperor NicephorusIII. 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.

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. OthoI. surnamed the Great, drove them out ofItaly, 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 OthoII. 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.

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

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.

Baronius and some others call St.Henry the first emperor of that name, because HenryI. 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 CharlesV. 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 orIII.

S.Fulgent, ep.6.

N.11, p.69.

Critic. Hist. Chron. ad an.734, n.4.

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 10Sept., t.2, p.612.

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.

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.

Hearne, Teat. Roffens, p.269.

See Ingulph. Asser. Redborne.

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

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.

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

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:

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.

Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, p.346.

Conc. NicÆn. Can.15.

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.

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

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

Sozom., l.2, c.19, p.469.

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

Theodoret, l.1, c.20. Theodorus Lector, l.2, c.1, p.547. Theophanes, p.114. See Tillem, note4, p.653.

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.

Gr.22, p.548.

“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.

“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.

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 Poenit. 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, Croesus, 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, OApelles, 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; Iheld it in times past; Ifirst 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; Iam 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 Ihold.” (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.) “Iam 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.

Abook 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, and391), 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: “Ifound 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 year245.

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, “Iam informed that they have made a decree, and even a peremptory one; the chief priest, that is, the bishop of bishops, saith; Iremit 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 and4.) 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.

Tert. l.ad Scapul. c.3.

L.7, Ep.8.

Euchar.

Ennod. l.8, Ep.24, ad Faust.

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.

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.

That a pretended woman called Joan interrupted the series of the succession between LeoIV. and BennetIII., is a most notorious forgery. Lupus Ferrariensis, ep.103, to BennetIII. Ado in his Chronicle, Rhegino in his Chronicle, the annals of St.Bertin, Hincmar ep.26, pope NicholasI. the successor of BennetIII. 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 BennetIII. succeeded immediately LeoIV. 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.

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 in117. 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, “Ihave not leisure.” The woman replied: “Then cease to reign.” “Noli ergo imperare.” Whereupon he stopped and heard her complaint.

St.Paulin. ep.11. ad Sever.

St.Hieron. ep.13. ad Paul.

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. Aslave 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.

Asette Frate, in the villa of Mafiei, nine miles from Rome. See Aringhi, Roma Subter. l.3, c.14.

Ado, Usuard; Mart. Rom. cum notis Baronii et Lubin.

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.

St.Aug. Pref. l.de hÆres.

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 PhilipII. PaulIV. in1559, 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.

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.

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 in830, 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, in833, 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 in840, he left to her son Charles the monarchy of France.

P. 204.

L.1, de gestis Pontif. Angl. p.197.

Hist. Episcop. Ultraj.

Chron.

Ubbo Emmius, Rerum Frisic. l.3, p.74.

The works of St.Bruno of Segni, or of Asti, with a preliminary dissertation of Dom. Maur Marchesi were printed at Venice in1651, in two vols. folio, and in the Bibl. Patr. at Lyons in1677, 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.LeoIX. and another of St.Peter, bishop of Anagnia, whom PaschalII. canonized. This latter the Bollandists have published on the 3d of April.

Collet, t.1, b.1, p.66,71.

This book of Jansenius was condemned by UrbanVIII. in1641, and in1653 InnocentX. censured five propositions to which the errors contained in this book were principally reduced. AlexanderVII. in1656 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 in1671 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 in1693 and1694. In it he craftily insinuated the errors of Jansenius, and a contempt of the censures of the Church. ClementXI. condemned this book, in1708; and in1713 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. Acertain 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.

See F.HonorÉ Addit. sur les Observ. p.241, &c. Languet ep. Pastor,&c.

HonorÉ, ibid. p.245,253,&c.

See Collet’s life of St.Vincent, l.3, t.1, p.260, and Abelly, l.2, ch.12.

L.9.

This consists in a prolapse both of the gut and the omentum or caul together.

T.2, p.546.

“Fuge, tace, quiesce; hÆc sunt principia salutis,” Rosweide, Cotelier, et Saint Theod. Stud. Vit. S.Arcen., c.1, n.7.

Asmall 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.??????.

St.Chrys. l.de Virginit. t.1, p.321, ed. Ben.

St.Aug. in Ps.128.

St.John Clim. Grad.7, p.427.

Gr.27, n.65.