Part 42

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.