October XXIII

St. Theodoret, Priest and Martyr

From his authentic acts mentioned by Sozomen, l. 5, c. 8, and by Theodoret, l. 3, c. 13, published by Mabillon, Vet. Analect. t. 4, p. 127, and by Ruinart, Act. Sinc. p. 592. See Baillet, p. 355.

a. d. 362.

Julian, uncle to the emperor Julian, and likewise an apostate, was by his nephew made count or governor of the East, of which district Antioch was the capital. Being informed that in the treasury of the chief church of the Catholics there was a great quantity of gold and silver plate, he was determined to seize it into his own hands, and published an order by which he banished the clergy out of the city. Theodoret, a zealous priest, who had been very active during the reign of Constantius in destroying idols and in building churches and oratories over the relics of martyrs, and who was keeper of the sacred vessels, (not of the great church then in the hands of Euzoius and his Arians,¹ but of some other church of the Catholics,) refused to abandon his flock, and continued openly to hold sacred assemblies with prayers and sacrifices. Count Julian commanded him to be apprehended, and brought before him with his hands bound behind his back. Julian charged him with having thrown down the statues of the gods, and built churches in the foregoing reign. Theodoret owned he had built churches upon the tombs of martyrs, and retorted upon the count, that after having known the true God he had abandoned his worship. The count ordered him to be beaten on the soles of his feet, then buffeted on his face, and afterwards tied to four stakes, and stretched with cords and pulleys by his legs and arms; which was done with such violence that his body seemed extended to the length of eight feet. The tyrant jeered him all the time; but the martyr exhorted him to acknowledge the true God, and Jesus Christ his Son, by whom all things were made. Julian ordered that he should be tormented on the rack, and, when the blood was streaming abundantly from his wounds, said to him: “I perceive you do not sufficiently feel your torments.” The martyr replied: “I do not feel them, because God is with me.” Julian caused lighted matches to be applied to his sides. The saint, while his flesh was burning, and the fat was melting in drops, lifted up his eyes to heaven and prayed that God would glorify his name throughout all ages. At these words, the executioners fell on their faces to the ground. The count himself was at first affrighted; but, recovering himself, he bid them again draw near the martyr with their torches. They excused themselves, saying, they saw four angels clothed in white with Theodoret. Julian, in a rage, ordered them to be thrown into the water, and drowned. Theodoret said to them: “Go before, my brethren; I will follow by vanquishing the enemy.” The count asked him who that enemy was. “The devil,” said the martyr, “for whom you fight. Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world, is he who giveth victory.” He then explained how God sent his Word into the world to clothe himself with human flesh in the womb of a virgin, and that this God made man, suffered freely, and by his sufferings, merited for us salvation. The count, in the impotence of his rage, threatened to put him instantly to death. Theodoret declared that was his desire, and said: “You, Julian, shall die in your bed under the sharpest torments; and your master, who hopes to vanquish the Persians, shall be himself vanquished: an unknown hand shall bereave him of life: he shall return no more to the territories of the Romans.” The count dictated a sentence by which he condemned the martyr to be beheaded; which he underwent with joy, in the year 362. This saint is by some called Theodore; at Uzez, in Languedoc, and at Apt, in Provence, (of both which places he is titular saint and principal patron,) Theodoric; but his true name is Theodoret.

On the day of the martyrdom of St. Theodoret, the count, according to an order he had received from the emperor, went and seized the effects of the great church of Antioch, having with him Felix, count of the largesses, or chief treasurer, and Elpidius, count of the private patrimony, that is, intendant of the demesnes, who were also apostates. Felix, as he was viewing the rich and magnificent vessels which the emperors Constantine and Constantius had given to the church, impiously said: “Behold with what rich plate the son of Mary is served!” Count Julian also profaned the sacred vessels in the most outrageous manner,² and these apostates made them the subject of their blasphemies and banter. Their impieties did not remain long unpunished. Count Julian passed the following night with much disquiet, and the next morning presented to the emperor an inventory of what he had seized, and informed him of what he had done with relation to St. Theodoret. Herein he had no other view than to please that prince. But the emperor told him plainly, that he approved not his putting any Christian to death merely on account of his religion, and complained that this would afford an occasion to the Galileans to write against him, and to make a saint and a martyr of Theodoret. The count, who little expected such a reception, remained greatly confounded. The fear with which he was seized, permitted him not to eat much at the sacrifice, at which he assisted with the emperor, and he retired to his own house much troubled in mind, so that he would take no nourishment. That evening he felt a violent pain in his bowels, and fell into a grievous and unknown disease. Some of the lower parts of his bowels being corrupted, he cast out his excrements by his mouth which had uttered so many blasphemies, and the putrefied parts bred such a quantity of worms that he could not be cleared of them, nor could all the art of physicians give him any relief. They killed a number of the choicest birds, which were sought at a great expense, and applied them to the parts affected in order to draw out the worms; but they crawled the deeper, and penetrated into the live flesh. They got into his stomach: and from time to time came out of his mouth. Philostorgius says, he remained forty days without speech or sense. He then came to himself, and bare testimony of his own impiety, for which he was thus severely punished, and pressed his wife to go and pray for him at church, and to desire the prayers of the Christians. He entreated the emperor to restore to the Christians the churches which he had taken from them, and to cause them to be opened. But he could not obtain from him even that favor, and received only this answer: “It was not I who shut them up; and I will give no orders to have them set open.” The count sent him word, that it was for his sake that he had quitted Christianity, and now perished so miserably. But Julian, without showing the least compassion, or fearing himself the hand of God, sent him this answer: “You have not been faithful to the gods; and it is for that you suffer such torments.” At length the imposthumes, which spread very far, and the worms which gnawed him continually, reduced him to the utmost extremity. He threw them up without ceasing, the three last days of his life, with a stench which he himself could not bear. His nephew Julian lamented him as little when dead as he had pitied him living, and continued to declare, that this calamity befell him because he had not been faithful to the gods.³ Felix and Elpidius came also to miserable ends. The emperor himself, in Persia, when he was wounded in the side by an arrow from an unknown hand, is related in the acts of St. Theodoret to have said, casting with his hand some of his blood towards heaven: “Even here, O Galilan, you pursue me. Satiate yourself with my blood, and glory that you have vanquished me.” He was carried into a neighboring village, where he expired a few hours after, on the 26th of June, 363, as the author of these acts tells us; who, moreover, says: “We were with him in the palace at Antioch, and in Persia.” Theodoret and Sozomen agree with him. Philostorgius says, that Julian addressed the above-mentioned words to the sun, the god of the Persians, and that he died blaspheming his own gods.

With what inexpressible horrors is the sinner seized when he finds himself overtaken by divine vengeance, or in the jaws of death! In his short lived imaginary prosperity, it is his study to forget himself: if herein he unhappily succeeds so far as to arrive at a spiritual insensibility, his alarms will be the more grievous when his soul shall be awakened from her lethargy, and the fooleries which at present amuse her and divert her attention, shall have lost their enchanting power. At least his rage, consternation, and despair will but be the more intolerable for eternity. The servant of God finds in his God a solid comfort in all events, reposing in him a confidence which nothing can shake, and ever rejoicing in his holy will, to which with love and assurance he commits himself in life and death. His omnipotence all things obey, and his infinite goodness and most tender mercy are always open and ready to meet us: his servant never calls to mind or names either of those, or any other attribute of God without feeling an inexpressible interior relish, and sentiment of joy and love. In a filial fear, and sincere compunction for his sins, he ceases not with sweet confidence to invoke his God, his Redeemer, Friend, and Protector, begging that he exert his omnipotence (which is nowhere so wonderfully manifested as in the pardon of sinners) and that he display his eternal and boundless mercy in bringing him to true repentance and salvation, and that he ordain all things with regard to him according to his holy will, and to the greater glory of his adorable name.

St. Romanus, Archbishop of Rouen, C.

He was born of an illustrious and virtuous French family, brought up in the practice of piety, and placed young in the court of Clotaire II., the third French king who was master of the whole monarchy. He was referendary or chancellor to that prince, when, in 626, upon the death of Hidulphus, he was chosen archbishop of Rouen, and compelled to receive episcopal consecration. The remains of idolatry in that diocese excited his zeal; he converted the unbelievers, and destroyed a famous temple of Venus at Rouen, and three others in the diocese dedicated to Mercury, Jupiter, and Apollo. Amongst many miracles which he wrought, it is related that the Seine having overflowed a considerable part of the city, the saint, who happened then to be at the court of Dagobert for certain affairs of his church, upon hearing this melancholy news, made haste to comfort and succor his afflicted flock; and kneeling down to pray on the side of the water with a crucifix in his hand, the water retired gently within the banks of the river.^* If the miracles of this holy prelate raise our admiration, the eminent virtues which he practised ought still more to fix our attention. He macerated his body with continual austerities, and after the fatigues of his ministry, passed almost whole nights in prayer. By his indefatigable zeal he banished vice and superstition, and watched over the souls of all his flocks as over his own. He had discharged all the duties of an apostolic pastor thirteen years, when God made known to him that the time was come in which he was to be called to receive his recompense. Romanus, whose whole life had been an earnest preparation for that hour, received the summons with joy; and redoubling the fervor of his penance, prayers, and other good works, disposed himself for that happy moment, in which he entered the joy of his Lord on the 23d of October, 639. St. Owen was his successor Romanus was interred in the church of St. Godard, one of his predecessors; but, in the eleventh age, his body was removed into our Lady’s, which is the cathedral. The first shrine having been impoverished, the archbishop Rotrou, in 1179, caused a very rich one to be made, which is known by the name of La fierta-saint-Romain. See Le Cointe, Ann. Franc. au. 626, 635, 638, and the Life of St. Romanus written in Leonine verses, by a clergyman or monk of Rouen, before the reign of Charlemagne, brought to light by the Maurist monks Martenne and Durand, in 1717. (Thesaur. Nov. Anecdot. p. 1651.) This poem was compiled from a life of this saint which was more ancient, (Rivet, Hist. Lit. t. 4, p. 73, et Contin. t. 8, p. 376.) St. Romanus’s life was again composed by Gerard, dean of St. Medard’s at Soissons in the tenth age; also by Fulbert, the learned archdeacon of Rouen, in 1091, (not by the second Fulbert, who flourished in 1130.) This last piece was published by Rigaltius with dissertations and notes.

St. John Capistran, or, of Capistran, C.

John, the father of this saint, was a gentleman of Anjou, who going to serve in the army in the kingdom of Naples, settled at Aquila, and soon after at Capistran, a neighboring town, where he took a young lady to wife. Our saint was born at Capistran in 1385, and after learning Latin in his own country, studied the civil and canon law at Perugia, in which faculty he commenced doctor with great applause. By his fortune and abilities he soon made a figure in that city, and one of the principal men of the town gave him his daughter in marriage. In 1413, a grievous dissension fell out between the city of Perugia and Ladislas, king of Naples. John used his best endeavors to bring his fellow-citizens to a peace, and carried on a negotiation for some time with success, for which he undertook some journeys. Those who were more violent in this quarrel, taking it into their heads that he betrayed his citizens in favor of his former master, a party belonging to one of these factions, seized his person on the road, and confined him in the castle of Bruffa, five miles from Perugia. In this prison he had much to suffer, being loaded with chains, and being allowed no other subsistence than bread and water. Seeing himself here abandoned by king Ladislas himself, and from his own feeling experience meditating on the inconstancy of human things, and the treachery and falsehood of a vain and sinful world, he began seriously to enter into himself, and to become a new man. His lady dying in that interval of time, he resolved to embrace a penitential state in the holy order of St. Francis. Impatient of delays, he begged to be immediately admitted; but the guardian refused to send him the habit while he continued a prisoner. He therefore cut his clothes into the shape of a religious habit, and his hair so as to form a tonsure. Obtaining his liberty shortly after, he went to Capistran, and selling his estate, with part of the price he paid his ransom, and the remaining part he distributed among the poor. Then returning to Perugia, he took the habit in the convent of the Franciscans De Monte at Perugia, in 1415, being thirty years old. The guardian, who understood how full he had been of a worldly spirit, the more effectually to try his vocation, and to extinguish in him secular pride and self-love, ordered him to ride on an ass in a ridiculous dress through all the streets of Perugia, with a paper cap on his head, on which many grievous sins were written in capital letters. This must appear a severe trial to a man of birth and reputation: but such was the fervor of the saint in his penitential course, that it seemed to cost him nothing. He was moreover twice expelled the convent without any reason, and admitted again on very hard conditions.

The perfect spirit with which he underwent all humiliations and austerities that were imposed upon him, gave him in a short time so complete a victory over himself, that he never afterwards found any difficulty in the severest trials. Such was his ardor in the practice of penance, that to those enjoined by his rule or by obedience he added the most austere voluntary mortifications. To prepare himself for the first communion, which he made after his general confession upon taking the habit, he spent three days in prayer and tears, without taking any nourishment. From the time that he made his religious profession he ate only once a day, except in long fatiguing journeys, when he took an exceeding small collation at night. For thirty-six years he never tasted flesh, except a very little out of obedience when he was sick. Pope Eugenius IV. having commanded him in his old age to eat a little flesh meat, he obeyed, but look so very small a quantity that his holiness left him at liberty to use his own discretion. He slept on the boards, and took only three or sometimes four hours a-night for his rest, employing the remaining part in prayer and contemplation; which exercises he for many years seemed never to interrupt but by preaching to the people, or short necessary repose. It would be too long to relate the admirable instances which are recorded of his perfect mortification, obedience, and humility, and the most profound sentiment of contempt of himself which made him delight in the meanest employs. His spirit of compunction and gift of tears astonished and strongly affected those that conversed with him. He said mass every day with the most edifying devotion. By his zeal and ardent desire of the glory of God and the salvation of souls he seemed, in his actions and preaching, another St. Paul. Wherever he came, by his powerful words, or rather by that wonderful spirit of zeal and devotion with which he spoke, he beat down the pride and obstinacy of hardened sinners, filled their souls with holy fear, and softened their hearts into compunction. At the end of a sermon which he made at Aquila against the vanity, dangers, and frequent sins of the world with regard to dress, and amusements, the ladies brought together a great quantity of fine handkerchiefs, aprons, artificial heads of hair,^* perfumes, cards, dice, and other such things, and made of them a great bonfire. The same was done at Nuremberg, Leipsic, Frankfort, Magdeburg, and several other places. He had a singular talent at reconciling the most inveterate enemies, and inducing them from their hearts to forgive one another. He made peace between Alphonsus of Aragon and the city of Aquila; also between the families of Oronesi and Lanzieni, and between many cities which were at variance, and he appeased he most violent seditions.

St. Bernardin of Sienna established a reformation of the Franciscan order and was appointed by the general, William of Cassal, in 1437, and confirmed by pope Eugenius IV., in 1438, the first vicar-general of the Observantin or Reformed Franciscans in Italy, in which office he continued six years from his nomination by his general in 1437, and five from his confirmation by the pope. St. John was twice chosen to the same office, each time for the space of three years, and exceedingly promoted this reformation. By one sermon which he preached on death and the last judgment in Bohemia, one hundred and twenty young men were so moved, as with great fervor to devote themselves to God in different religious orders, of which sixty embraced his penitential institute. He inherited St. Bernardin’s singular devotion to the holy name of Jesus, and to the glorious Mother of God. The marquisate of Ancona, Apulia, Calabria, and Naples, were the first theatres of his zeal; he afterwards preached frequently in Lombardy and the Venetian territories; then in Bavaria, Austria, Carinthia, Moravia, Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary.

St. John was often employed in important commissions by the popes Martin V., Eugenius IV., Nicholas V., and Calixtus III. The council of Basil, which had been called by Martin V., assembled in July, 1431, under Eugenius IV., and was in the first sessions approved by him, till this pope, alleging that the place was at too great a distance to suit the convenience of the Greek emperor and the oriental prelates, removed it to Ferrara, in 1437.^* Those prelates who obstinately opposed this removal proceeded at length to an open schism. The pope employed St. John in several important commissions to stem this evil, and many great personages, particularly Philip duke of Burgundy, to whom his holiness sent the saint for that purpose, were withdrawn by his exhortations from the schism. The saint was sent nuncio by the same pope to the duke of Milan, to Charles VII. king of France, and into Sicily, and his endeavors met everywhere with the desired success. He was one of the theologians employed by his holiness at the council of Florence in promoting the union of the Greeks. Certain vagabond friars called Frerots and Beroches, the remains of the Fratricelli, whose heresy was condemned by Boniface VIII. and John XXII. in the beginning of the fourteenth century, filled the marquisate of Ancona with disturbances, till St. John, having received a commission from Eugenius to preach against them, entirely cleared Italy of that pestilential seditious sect. Many parts of Germany being at that time full of disorders and confusion, the emperor Frederic III., neas Sylvius, legate and bishop of Sienna, (afterwards pope Pius II.) and Albert, duke of Austria, the emperor’s brother, solicited pope Nicholas that St. John might be sent into those countries, that the force of his example, zeal, and eloquence might give a check to the overflowings of vice and heresy. St. John, therefore, was invested with the authority of apostolic legate, and, attended with one colleague, travelled by Venice and Friuli into Carinthia, Carniola, Tirol, Bavaria, and Austria, preaching everywhere with incredible fruit. His sermons he delivered in Latin, and they were afterwards explained by an interpreter to those who did not understand that language. The like blessings attended his labors in Moravia, Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary.^† He converted in Moravia four thousand Hussites. Rockysana, the head of that party in Bohemia, invited him to a conference; but king Pogebrac, fearing the consequences of such a disputation, would not allow him the liberty. St. John was mortified at this disappointment, and wrote a book against Rockysana.^* It would be too long to follow the saint in his progresses through the provinces above mentioned; also, through Brandenburg, Poland, and Hungary, or to mention the honors with which he was received by the electors and other princes, especially the dukes of Bavaria and Saxony, the marquis of Brandenburg, and the emperor himself, who often assisted at his sermons.

Mahomet II. having taken Constantinople by assault on the 26th of May, 1453, pope Nicholas V. sent a commission to St. John to exhort the Christian princes to take up arms to check the progress of the common enemy; which the saint executed with great success in several assemblies of princes of the empire. Nicholas V. dying in 1455, and Calixtus III. succeeding in the pontificate, St. John returned to Rome to receive the orders of the new pope. His holiness appeared more earnest than his predecessor had been to engage the Christians to undertake a general expedition against the infidels, who were carrying their victorious arms into the heart of Europe,^† and he sent preachers to different parts to excite the princes to this war. St. John returned with ample powers to preach up the crusade in Germany and Hungary. Mahomet, after the taking of Constantinople, counted the western empire as already his own, and looked upon himself as master of all Christendom. Not doubting but he should soon plant the Ottoman crescent in the cities of Vienna and Rome, he marched his numerous victorious army into Hungary, and sat down before Belgrade on the 3d of June, in 1456. King Ladislas V. fled to Vienna; but John Corvin, commonly called Hunniades,¹ the brave Vayvode of Transylvania, and governor of Hungary, who had so often beat the Turks under Amurath, in Hungary, Transylvania, and Thrace, assembled his forces with all possible expedition, and sent to entreat St. John Capistran to hasten the march of forty thousand crusards, whom he had raised, to his assistance. The Turks covered the Danube with a fleet of two hundred ships of a particular construction for the navigation of that river, and had embarked on them an army of resolute veteran troops. Hunniades, with a fleet of a hundred and sixty saics, or small vessels, which were much lighter and much better commanded than those of the infidels entirely discomfited them after a most obstinate and bloody engagement, and entered the town, which stands upon the confluence of the Danube and the Save. St. John Capistran attended him, animating the soldiers in the midst of all dangers, holding in his hands the cross that he had received from the pope. The Turks made several furious assaults upon the town, notwithstanding the slaughter of their bravest men was so great that they marched upon heaps of their own dead to the very walls. Thus at length they got into the town, and the Christians gave way before them. All things were despaired of, when St. John, appearing in the foremost rank, with his cross in his hand, encouraged the soldiers to conquer or die martyrs, often crying, with a loud voice, “Victory, Jesus, victory.” The Christians, thus animated, cut the infidels in pieces, threw them down from the ramparts, and drove them out of the town. In the sallies which the Christians made, they slew the Turks like sheep, and on every side repulsed their most determined and experienced troops. Mahomet, flushed with conquests and confidence of victory, became furious, and omitted nothing after every check to reanimate his troops, till at length, having lost his best officers and soldiers, and his own dearest friends, with sixty thousand soldiers, being himself wounded slightly in the thigh, and seeing the shattered remains of his great and haughty army, which he thought invincible, so dispirited, that he was no longer able, either by promises or severity, to make them face the Christians, shamefully raised the siege on the 6th of August; and, leaving behind him all his heavy artillery and baggage, and the greatest part of his booty, retreated with precipitation. The next year he turned his arms, first against Trebizonde, and afterwards against the Persians; though, some time after, he again fell upon the West, when the brave Hunniades was no more. The glory of this victory is ascribed by historians not less to the zeal, courage, and activity of St. John Capistran than to the conduct of Hunniades. This great prince, who possessed the virtues of a Christian and all the qualifications of an accomplished general, was admirable for his foresight and precautions against all events, for his consummate knowledge of all the branches of the complicated art of war, for his undaunted courage in dangers, his alacrity, ardor, and cool presence of mind in action, and his skill in seizing the happy moments in battle upon which the greatest victories depend; which skill is so much the result of genius, improved by experience and deep reflection, that it may be called a kind of instinct, no less than the skill of able practitioners in physic in discerning the fatal, critical moments for applying powerful remedies in dangerous diseases, for strengthening nature in her efforts, or in checking, dissolving, correcting, or expelling morbid humors, &c.

It is not, however, detracting in the least from the glory of this Christian hero, to give equal praise to the zeal, activity, address, and courage of a religious man, in whose authority, prudence, and sanctity, the soldiers placed an entire confidence. After all, it was the finger of the Almighty which overthrew phalanxes that seemed invincible. God employs second causes, but in them his mercy and power are not less to be adored. The divine assistance in this happy deliverance was, doubtless obtained by the prayers of the servants of God, especially of St. John Capistran, whose name was then famous for many miracles which had been wrought by him. The brave Hunniades was taken ill of a fever, which he contracted by the fatigues of this campaign, and died at Zemplin on the 10th of September the same year. When he lay dying, he would absolutely rise, and go to church to receive the viaticum, saying he could not bear the thoughts that the King of kings should come to him. St. John Capistran never quitted him during his last sickness, and pronounced his funeral sermon. At the news of his death pope Calixtus III. wept bitterly, and all Christendom was in tears: Mahomet himself grieved, saying, in his boast, there was no longer any prince left in the world whom it would be either an honor or a pleasure to vanquish. St. John did not long survive him being seized with a fever, incurable dysentery, and bloody flux, with the gravel. While he lay sick in his convent at Willech, or Vilak, near Sirmich, in the diocese of Five-Churches, he was honored with the visits of king Ladislas, the queen, and many princes and noblemen. Under his pains he never ceased praising and glorifying God; frequently confessed his sins, and received the viaticum and extreme unction with many tears. He often repeated that God treated him with too great lenity, and would never be laid on a bed, but on the hard floor. In this posture he calmly expired on the 23d of October, in 1456, being seventy-one years old. When Willech fell into the hands of the Turks, his body was removed by the friars to another town, where the Lutherans afterwards (having plundered the shrine) threw it into the Danube. The relics were taken out of the river at Illoc, and are preserved there to this day. Pope Leo X. granted an office in his honor, to be celebrated at Capistran, and in the diocese of Sulmona. The saint was canonized by Alexander VIII. in 1690, and Benedict XIII. published the bull of his canonization in 1724. See his life compiled at length by F. Christopher of Variso, a Milanese, a disciple and companion; and again by F. Gabriel of Verena, another disciple. See also the letter of his religious companions containing a relation of his death, to Card. neas Sylvius; Bonfinius, Dec 3, l. 7; neas Sylvius, Hist. Boem c. 65, and in Deser. Europ, c. 8, Gonzaga in Austriac et Argentina Provincia, p. 451; F. Henry Sedulius, in Historia Seraphica, seu S. Francisci et aliorum hujus ordinis qui relati sunt inter sanctos, fol. Antv. 1611; and F. Wadding’s Annals, in eight vols. Fresnoy mistakes when he says Wadding’s catalogue of writers makes his eighth volume, for there is an eighth volume of his annals printed at Rome, in 1654, after the others, very scarce before the new Roman edition.

St. Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, C.

The origin of the Greek schism, commenced by the usurper Photius, renders the life of this holy prelate an interesting part of the history of the church. His birth was most illustrious; for his mother Procopia was daughter to the emperor Nicephorus, and his father Michael, surname! Rangab, was at first curopolates, or master of the household to the emperor; and on the death of his father-in-law Nicephores, who was slain by the Bulgarians, was himself raised to the imperial throne. His piety and mildness promised the greatest happiness both to the church and state; but this was a blessing of which the sins of the people rendered them unworthy. Leo the Armenian, the impious and barbarous general of the army, revolting, the good emperor, to avert the calamity of a civil war, resigned to him the diadem after a reign of only one year and nine months. He had then two sons living, and two daughters, with whom he and his wife retired into the isle of the Princesses, where they all embraced a monastic state. Theophilactus, the elder son, took the name of Eustratus; and the younger, who is the saint who is here spoken of, changed his former name, Nicetas, into that of Ignatius: he was at that time fourteen years of age. The father was called in religion Athanasius, and survived thirty-two years—to 845. The new emperor, to secure to himself the dignity which he had got by injustice and treachery, parted all his family, banishing them into several islands, and keeping them under a strict guard; and the two sons he made eunuchs, that they might be rendered incapable of raising issue to their family. During the reigns of this Leo, of Michael Balbus, or the Stammerer, and Theophilus, they enjoyed a sweet tranquillity, which they consecrated with great fidelity to the exercises of devotion and penance; in which, by their fervor and love, calm resignation to all the appointments of heaven, and by the unction of divine grace, they found more solid pleasure than a court could afford; and by curbing the activity of their desires, and by the regulation of their passions, enjoyed an interior peace which the whole world could not take from them. Ignatius, indeed, underwent a most severe trial, being placed in a monastery which was governed by a furious Iconoclast abbot, from whom he had daily much to suffer; but this very circumstance became to him a spur to watchfulness, and a continual exercise of patience and other Christian virtues, by which he learned daily to die more perfectly to himself. For it is not the tranquillity of monastic solitude, nor a distance from the busy scenes of the world, but the mastery over a man’s domestic passions, and the government of his own heart, which is the source of that peace of mind which invites the Holy Ghost into a soul, and is the greatest blessing on this side heaven. So conspicuous was the virtue of our saint, that, upon the death of his persecutor, he was unanimously chosen abbot. The prudence and meekness, zeal and charity with which he governed this house, and instructed and walked before his brethren in the paths of evangelical perfection, gained him universal love and veneration; and he founded three new monasteries in three little islands, and one, called St. Michael’s, on the continent. In 842, the empress Theodora, by the death of her husband, Theophilus, became regent for her son Michael III., a minor, restored holy images, expelled John the Iconoclast, patriarch of Constantinople, and raised Saint Methodius to that dignity. After his death, in 846, St. Ignatius, who then led a monastic life in the islands of Hiatres and Terebinthus, which he had peopled with monks, was dragged out of his secure harbor into the stormy ocean of the world, and made patriarch.

His spirit of mortification, his humility, charity, intrepidity, zeal, and other virtues, shone forth in this public station with bright lustre; but the generous liberty which he used in opposing vice, and reprimanding public offenders, drew on him severe persecutions, the ordinary portion of the elect. Bardas Csar, brother to the empress, had a great share in the government, for which his great abilities would have qualified him if the corruption of his heart had not. rendered him unfit to be a member of civil society, much more to be intrusted with the care of the republic, and the protection of the church and people. For eloquence, he was superior to most of his contemporaries: he was well versed in all profane literature, and a great lover and promoter of learning; but withal false, crafty, cruel, and so scandalously debauched in his morals, that he put away his lawful wife, and incestuously took his own daughter-in-law to his bed, with whom he was fallen desperately in love. The patriarch could not bear such enormous scandals, and tenderly exhorted this hardened sinner to hare pity on his own soul. But the miserable man was so far from giving ear to his charitable admonitions, as impudently to present himself to receive the holy communion in the great church on the feast of the Epiphany. The patriarch refused to admit him to the holy table, and declared him excommunicated. Bardas, stung with resentment, threatened to stab him; but the prelate remained firm, and set before his eyes the divine judgments. Bardas took an opportunity to seek revenge. The young emperor being of a depraved heart, suffered himself to be carried headlong down the precipice of vice; so that it was hot hard for the wicked uncle, by flattering his passions, to gain an ascendant over him. Bardas, who for some time had made it his whole study to ruin the pastor of his soul, set himself first to remove his mother, who was the protectress of St. Ignatius, and moreover stood in his way, and often checked his ambitious and wicked designs. He therefore persuaded his nephew Michael, that it being time for him now to reign by himself, he ought to send away his mother and his sisters into some monastery. The unnatural and ungrateful son relished this advice, that he might be more at liberty to follow his vicious inclinations, sent for the patriarch, and ordered him to cut off the hair of his mother and three sisters as a mark of their engaging in a monastic life. His refusal to commit such an unjust and irreligious act of violence was represented by Bardas in the most odious colors, and the holy patriarch was charged with fomenting rebellions. Michael, in the mean time, caused his mother and sisters to be shaved, and shut up in a monastery; and, on the 23d of November, by his order, St. Ignatius, when he had been patriarch eleven years, was driven from his see by Bardas, and banished to the isle of Terebinthus, where one of his monasteries stood. All means were used to extort from him a resignation of his dignity; but he refused by such an act to deliver up his flock to wolves; nor could his constancy be moved by artifices, persuasions, buffets, chains, or dungeons. At last, however, Bardas declared Photius, the eunuch, patriarch, without so much as the formality of an election. This extraordinary man was of high birth, nephew to the patriarch Tarasius, and nearly related to the emperor and to Bardas Csar. He was a prodigy of genius and learning, being well skilled in all the profane arts, and not altogether unacquainted with ecclesiastical matters, in which also, by application after his promotion, he acquired great knowledge. So passionately fond was he of books, that he often spent whole nights at his studies. But he was a mere layman, and had two considerable employments at court, being Protospatharius and Protosecretis, that is master of the horse and chief secretary to the emperor. His great qualifications were debased by a consummate depravity of soul; for he was the most cunning and deceitful of men, and always ready to sacrifice everything to an unbounded ambition. He was also a schismatic, and adhered to Gregory Abestas, bishop of Syracuse, in Sicily, who had raised a faction against St. Ignatius, from the time of his promotion to the patriarchate. The saint had endeavored to reclaim this prelate, sparing neither words nor good turns, but in vain; so that at length in a council, in 854, he condemned and deposed him for his crimes. Photius continued to protect him, and being nominated patriarch by Bardas was ordained bishop in six days: on the first, he was made a monk; on the second, reader; on the third, subdeacon; on the fourth, deacon; on the fifth, priest; and on the sixth, which was Christmas-day, patriarch. This was done in the year 858.

The election of Photius having been made by Bardas alone, notoriously against the canons, no bishop could be prevailed upon to ordain him till he had gained some of them by promising to renounce the schism, which he had abetted, to embrace the communion of Ignatius, to acknowledge him as lawful patriarch, to honor him as his father, and to do nothing without his consent. Yet in less than two months after his ordination, in contempt of his oaths, he persecuted most outrageously all the clergy that adhered to Ignatius, and caused several to be scourged or otherwise tormented. In order to destroy Ignatius, he persuaded Bardas, and, through his means, the emperor, to commence an information against him as having secretly conspired against the state. Commissioners were sent to the isle of Terebinthus, and the saint’s servants put to the question to compel them to accuse their master; but nothing could be extorted from them. However, the sain was conveyed to the island Hieria, where a goat-house was his prison thence he was removed to Prometa, a suburb near Constantinople, where two of his teeth were knocked out by a blow given him by a captain of the guards, and he was confined in a narrow dungeon with his feet put in the stocks, and fastened to two iron bars. Several bishops of the province of Constantinople assembled in the church of peace in that city, and excommunicated Photius. On the other side, Photius, supported by Bardas, in a council, pronounced a sentence of deposition and excommunication against Ignatius, who, in August, 859, with many of his adherents, was put on board a vessel, loaded with chains, and sent to Mitylene, in the isle of Lesbos. Photius sent messengers with a letter to pope Nicholas I. in which he signified that Ignatius had resigned his see by reason of his age and craziness, and had withdrawn into a monastery, where he lived in great esteem with the princes and people; that himself had been chosen by the metropolitans, and compelled by the emperor to take upon him that dreadful burden, which he hypocritically lamented; but begged the pope to send two legates to ratify these proceedings, and condemn the Iconoclasts.¹ The emperor also sent an embassy, consisting of a patrician and four bishops, on the same errand, with rich presents to the church of St. Peter. The pope received no messengers from Ignatius, whose enemies did not suffer him to send any. He therefore answered these letters very cautiously, and sent two legates to Constantinople, Rodoald, bishop of Porto, and Zachary, bishop of Anagnia, with orders to decide in council the questions concerning holy images, according to the definitions of the seventh general council. But as to the affair of Ignatius and Photius, the legates had orders only to take informations, and to send them to the pope. In his answer to the emperor, he complains that Ignatius had been deposed without consulting the holy see, and that a layman had been chosen against, the canons. In that to Photius he expresses his joy to find his confession of faith orthodox; but takes notice of the irregularities committed in his election. In the mean time Ignatius was brought back from Mitylene to the isle of Terebinthus, about the time that his monasteries with the neighboring isles were all plundered, and twenty-three of his domestics massacred by a fleet of a Scythian nation, called Rossi, or Russians. The pope’s two legates being arrived at Constantinople, Photius and the emperor found means to gain them after they had long resisted.

A synod, therefore, was held at Constantinople in 861, in which, the legates prevaricating and exceeding their power and commission, St. Ignatius was unjustly deposed, with much harsh and tyrannical usage, seventy-two false witnesses having been heard against him, who alleged that his election had not been canonical.² After this, Photius caused the saint to be shut up in the sepulchre of Constantine Copronymus, which was in the same church where the council had been held: here the prisoner was most cruelly beaten and tormented, kept for a fortnight always standing, and a whole week without meat or sleep. In the weak condition to which he was reduced, Theodorus, one of the three ruffians that tormented him, in order to compel him to sign his own condemnation, and the resignation of his see, took his hand by force, and made him sign a cross upon a paper which he held. This he carried to Photius, who caused an act of his renunciation to be written over it. This paper Photius delivered to the emperor, who thereupon sent an order that Ignatius should be released, and suffered to retire to the palace of Posa, his mother’s house, where he enjoyed a little respite, and had an opportunity of drawing up a petition to the pope. It was signed by ten metropolitans, fifteen bishops, and an infinite number of priests and monks Theognostus, a monk archimandrite of Rome, and abbot at Constantinople, was the bearer, and informed the pope of all that had passed.

Photius, not thinking himself yet secure, advised the emperor to cause Ignatius to read his condemnation in the Ambo or pulpit of the church of the apostles; then to have his eyes pulled out, and his hand cut off. On Whit-Sunday, Ignatius saw his house on a sudden encompassed with soldiers; and made his escape only by putting on the poor secular clothes of a slave, and carrying a great pole upon his shoulders, to which two baskets were hung. In this disguise he went out in the night-time, being taken by the guards for a porter. He walked weeping, and lived a long time, sometimes in one island, sometimes in another; often changing his habitation, and concealing himself in caves, mountains, and desert places, where he subsisted on alms, being reduced to beg, though he was patriarch, and the son of an emperor. Photius and the emperor had caused strict search to be everywhere made for him, and the Drongarius, or admiral of the fleet, was sent with six light vessels in quest of him. All the islands in the Archipelago, and all the coasts were narrowly searched: Ignatius was often met by the soldiers, but was so disguised as never to be known. The Drongarius had orders to kill him upon the spot wherever he should be found. A terrible earthquake, which shook Constantinople for forty days together, terrified the citizens, who cried out that it was a just punishment for the persecution Ignatius suffered. The emperor and Bardas were both alarmed, and both swore publicly, and caused it to be proclaimed that no harm should be done to Ignatius, and that he might with safety return to his own monastery; which he did. The pope, after the return of his legates, and after he had received the acts of the pretended council, and the informations that were sent him, expressed great affliction for the prevarication of his legates, and disowned what they had done, declaring he gave them no commission for the deposition of Ignatius, or for the promotion of Photius.³ In his answers to the emperor and Photius he strongly shows that Ignatius was the only rightful patriarch, and that Photius’s election was every way irregular, nor does he address him otherwise than as a layman. In that to the emperor he says:⁴ “We have in our hands your letters, as well to Leo our predecessor as to us, whereby you gave testimony to the virtue of Ignatius, and the regularity of his ordination; and now you allege his having usurped the see by the secular power,” &c. At the same time the pope sent a third letter, directed to all the faithful in the East, wherein he condemned the prevarication of his legates who had acted against his orders; and, directing his words to the three patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, to the metropolitans and bishops, he says: “We enjoin and order you, by the apostolical authority, to have the same sentiments with us in regard to Ignatius and Photius; and to publish this letter in your dioceses, that it may be known to all men.”⁵ Photius, than whom there never was a more daring impostor, suppressed the letter he had received, and forged another in the name of the pope, as if of a later date than the rest, in which he intimates the pope to be in his interest, and to charge Ignatius with having imposed upon him. Eustratus, who pretended to have brought this letter from Rome, was convicted of the cheat, and condemned by Bardas himself to be severely scourged, notwithstanding the pressing solicitations of Photius, who, for his recompense, procured him an honorable and lucrative employment. It was afterwards affirmed that Photius had contrived this whole cheat. All this while he connived at the impiety of the emperor, who ridiculed the sacred ceremonies of religion, and mimicked them with the companions of his parties of debauchery. Photius assiduously made his court to the emperor, and ate at his table with these sacrilegious jesters. One of these buffoons, called Theophilus, used to act the part of the patriarch, and others that of the rest of the clergy, in a ludicrous manner, which was condemned in the eighth general council. The emperor rallied Photius for his want of religion, saying: “Theophilus (the buffoon) is my patriarch, Photius is Csar’s patriarch, and Ignatius is the patriarch of the Christians.” The two wicked princes were soon after cut off like Baltassar. Bardas was put to death by the emperor for conspiring against his life, in 866.

Photius having in vain courted the pope to draw him to his side, resolved at length to be revenged of him, and having exasperated the impious emperor against him, with his concurrence, held a council at Constantinople in the same year, 866, in which he presumed to pronounce sentence of deposition and excommunication against pope Nicholas: this was the first origin of the Greek schism. Photius had only twenty-one bishops who joined him in this council; but forged false acts as if it had been œcumenical, adding false subscriptions, as of deputies from the other three eastern patriarchs, and of about a thousand bishops. What much exasperated Photius was, that the Bulgarians, having been lately converted to the faith, the legates which pope Nicholas had sent among them rejected the chrism which Photius had consecrated and sent thither, and they made a new chrism to confirm as well the great men as the people of that nation. Photius, therefore, resolved to keep no longer any measures with the pope, but held this pretended synod against him; and when it was over, drew up a circular letter which he sent to the other oriental patriarchs and chief bishops, in which he trumped up a general charge against the Latin church.^* But he soon after lost both his protector and his usurped dignity. The emperor who had slain his uncle Bardas on the 29th of April, in 866, immediately adopted and declared master of the offices, Basil the Macedonian, a soldier of fortune who had a great share in the death of Bardas. And as Michael wanted both application and capacity for business, and could not do without another to govern for him, he soon after associated this Basil with him in the empire, and had him crowned in the church of St. Sophia on the 26th of May. But seeking soon after to depose him again, he was murdered by his guards while he was drunk, in September, 867.

The emperor Basil no sooner saw himself at liberty and master of affairs, but the very next day he banished Photius into the isle of Scepe, and honorably restored St. Ignatius; who was conducted with great pomp to the imperial city, and reinstated in the patriarchal chair on the 3d of November, in 867, after a banishment of nine years. If pride makes men haughty and insolent, or fond of themselves and of the esteem of others in prosperity, it leaves them pusillanimous, abject, and fawning in adversity. But he who is master of himself and his passions, is the same in all vicissitudes; his heart, under the steady influence of reason and virtue, is neither darkened with clouds, nor agitated by violent storms, but preserves itself in an even state of tranquillity by a noble firmness which it derives from an interior sentiment of religion. Such was the character of this saint, who appeared not less magnanimous in the greatest disgraces, than humble amid honors and applause. Having recovered his dignity, he solicited the emperor and the pope that a general council might be called. This was held at Constantinople in the church of St. Sophia, in 869, and is called the eighth. The legates of pope Adrian II., who had succeeded Nicholas in 867, presided. The council held by Photius was here condemned: that schismatic himself after a long hearing, was excommunicated, and those who had adhered to him were, upon confessing their fault, admitted to penance. Nicetas relates, that among Photius’s archives, which the emperor had seized, were found in sacks sealed with lead, two books in purple covers, adorned with gold and silver, the inside being curiously written in fair characters, with marks that they might appear ancient when they should be found by posterity. In the one, were contained forged acts of a pretended council against Ignatius, (which never was held:) in the other was a synodal letter against pope Nicholas: both full of outrageous slanders and invectives. Photius was banished by the emperor; but, eight years after this, by drawing a pedigree of that prince from Tiridates, king of Armenia, and certain old Thracian heroes, he pleased his vanity, and prevailed to be allowed to return to Constantinople, and to abide in his palace of Magnaurus. St. Ignatius applied himself to his pastoral functions with so much prudence, charity, zeal, and vigilance, as showed his sanctity and experience were much improved by his sufferings. He died on the 23d of October, in the year 878, being near fourscore years old. His body, enclosed in a wooden coffin, was carried to the church of St. Sophia, where the usual prayers were offered for his soul. It was then removed to St. Mennas’s, where two women possessed by devils were delivered in the presence of these relics. They were deposited in the church of St. Michael, which he had built near the Bosphorus, not far from the city. Both Latins and Greeks keep his festival on the day of his death. See his life written by the elegant Nicetas David, bishop of Paphlagonia, afterwards of Constantinople, who knew him; also Zonaras, Cedrenus, the eighth tome of the councils, Nat. Alexander, diss. 4, in sc. 9, et 10; Le Qulen, Or. Chr. in Ign. et Phot. t. 1, p. 246; and especially Baronius, with notes and amendments, in the new edition published by Veturini at Lucca.

St. Severin, Archbishop of Cologne, C.

His name is famous in the annals of the church. By his learning and zeal, not only his own diocese, but also that of Tongres, was purged from the venom of the Arian heresy, about the year 390. St. Gregory of Tours tells us that St. Severin knew by revelation the death and glory of St. Martin, at the time of his departure. He led an angelical life, and died soon after St. Martin, in 400. His life written by Fortunatus, mentioned by St. Gregory of Tours, is the best. See St. Greg. of Tours, De Glor. Conf. c. 45, et I. 8 Mirac. S. Martin, c. 4.

Another St. Severin, or Surin, B.

Is honored this day as patron of Bordeaux, which see he governed under St. Amand. He is said by some to have been the same with the foregoing archbishop of Cologne, who, resigning that see, retired to Bordeaux, his native city; but others distinguish them, and think the latter came to Bordeaux from some part of the East. See S. Greg. of Tours, loc. cit. Baillet; and Gall. Christ. Nova, t. 2, p. 789.

¹ Theodore. l. 2, c. 8; Bolland. t. 3, Maij. in Tr. prælim, p. 9, n. 34

² See Tillem. Hist. Eccl. t. 7, p. 395; Jortin’s remarks on Eccl. Hist. vol. iii. p. 277.

³ See the Acts of SS. Bonosus, &c., Aug. 21, t. 8, p. 289.

^* The name of St. Romanus is famous in France, on account of an extraordinary privilege which the metropolitical chapter of Rouen enjoys of releasing in his honor a prisoner under sentence of death for murder, every year, on the feast of the ascension of our Lord. The chapter sends notice to the parliament of Rouen two months before to stop the execution of criminals till that time; and on that day choose the prisoner, who, being first condemned to death by the parliament, then is set at liberty, assists in carrying the shrine of St. Romanus in the great procession, hears two exhortations, then is told that in honor of St. Romanus he is pardoned. After the procession, a high mass is sung in the metropolitical church, by an ancient privilege, though it be five or six o’clock in the evening. The common people pretend this privilege took its rise from St. Romanus killing a great serpent with the assistance of a murderer whom he took out of the dungeon. But no traces of this story are found in any life of this saint, or in any writings before the latter end of the fourteenth century. The figure of a serpent called Gargouille, seems here, as in some other towns, originally to have been meant to represent symbolically the devil overcome by Christ. The deliverance of the condemned criminal was probably intended for a symbol of the redemption of mankind through Christ. The dukes of Normandy granted and maintained this privilege; and it has been confirmed by several French kings. It is called Privilege de la Fierté ou châsse de St. Romain. Under the French kings of the first race, several holy bishops were sometimes allowed by the kings and governors to set open prisons. It is not improbable that from some such action of St. Romanus this privilege arose. Some moderns think it was established in memory of his having miraculously stopped the overflowing of the river: the origin of this privilege has been the subject of many dissertations. See Duplessis, Descr. de la Haute Norm, t. 2.

^* Artificial heads of hair were used by some before perukes became the fashion.

^* The council of Basil was continued eighteen years, first at Basil, afterwards at Lausanne. Its proceedings in 1433 concerning the Hussites, and some points of ecclesiastical discipline, were approved and confirmed by pope Eugenius IV., and this council is allowed to have been legal and general in the beginning, says Bellarmin; most theologians and canonists say, to the tenth session, held in 1433. During this session the pope by a message ordered it to be removed; and from this time the synod refused to admit his legates. By a few French theologians (whose number is very inconsiderable among those of that nation) it has been esteemed legal beyond this term to the twenty-sixth session, in 1437, when it was solemnly and finally dissolved by a bull of Eugenius, and the general council at the same time opened at Ferrara, to which Turrecramata, and a considerable part of those prelates that were assembled at Basil, then removed. Some, however, stayed behind, and continued their sessions, but from this time schismatically during the forty-five last sessions. In the thirty-sixth (schismatical) session, anno 1439, it was decreed, that the opinion which affirms the Blessed Virgin to have been conceived without original sin, is conformable to the Catholic faith, and to be held by all Catholics. The French Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII. relating chiefly to the collation of benefices, in 1438, was approved by this council. In the thirty-ninth session, in 1439, Amedeus VII., formerly duke of Savoy, was chosen antipope, under the name of Felix V. This prince had governed his state with great prudence and virtue, and, in 1416, first erected the county of Savoy into a duchy. In 1434 he resigned his dominions to his two sons, and, turning hermit, retired to Ripailles, a most pleasant priory and solitude near the lake of Geneva; whence the proverb Faire Ripaille, for taking a pleasant country vacation. In 1439 he was prevailed upon by the schismatical prelates at Basil to receive from them a pretended pontificate; which he afterwards voluntarily resigned, in 1449, and, being created cardinal by Nicholas V. died piously at Geneva. The presence of the chief patriarchs, as principal prelates, (at least by their deputies,) and of bishops from the different kingdoms of the Catholic Church, who represent the body of the first pastors of the whole church, are conditions necessary to constitute a general council; which were wanting at Basil after the tenth session: these were even then holding a general council at Florence. The confirmation of the pope is also required by most canonists and theologians to a general council. If doubts arise whether a council be general, we are to consider whether it be looked upon by the church as such, and as the representative of the whole; or whether the whole church receives ex post facto, as they say, and acquiesces in its decisions. Thus the frivolous objection that the conditions of certain councils are ambiguous, falls to the ground, and we can not in practice be at a loss where to fix this authority, though this may sometimes be obscure till circumstances are cleared up.

The true general council of Florence met first at Ferrara in 1437; and thither John Palæologus, the Greek emperor, with his prelates, repaired. After sixteen sessions, a contagious distemper breaking out at Ferrara, the council was removed by Eugenius IV. to Florence, in 1439, and the same year, in the twenty-fifth session, (which was the tenth that was held at Florence,) on the 6th of July, the Greeks having renounced their schism and errors, (except Mark of Ephesus,) the decree of union was signed. After the departure of the Greek the Armenians abjured their heresy, and subscribed a decree of union proposed by Eugenius IV. This council lasted three years after this, and was at length concluded at Rome, in the Lateran palace, in 1442. See Nat. Alex. Hist. Sæc. 15, Diss. 8, 9; Macquer; Le Fevre in Cont. Fleury t. 22, l. 3, Graveson; Leo Allatius, de Consensu Eccl. Occid. et Orient.; Berthier, Hist. l’Egl. Gallic, t. 16, &c.

^† Bohemia was at that time overrun with Hussites, and from the year 1415 had been a scene of blood and tumults. To revenge the death of John Huss, Zisca, (whose true name was John of Trocznou.) a veteran general, assembled an army of his followers, and plundered the whole country with unheard-of barbarity. After the death of king Wenceslas, in 1417, he opposed the election of Sigismund, who was emperor of Germany, defeated his armies eight times, built the strong fortress which he called Thabor, amidst waters and mountains, and died in 1424. Sigismund had made peace with him before his death, and at the council of Basil promised the archbishopric of Prague to John Rockysana, a clergyman, who had been deputed by the Hussites to the council of Basil, but who abjured that heresy, upon condition that the laity in Bohemia might be allowed to communicate in both kinds. The deputies of the council of Basil, and the Catholic assembly at Iglaw, in the diocese of Olmutz, in 1436, acquiesced; but required this condition, that, in case of such a concession, the priest should declare before giving the communion in both kinds, that it is an error to believe that Christ’s body or blood is alone under either kind. This Rockysana boggled at: nor would the pope ever grant him his bulls. His partisans, however, styled him archbishop, and he appeared at their head till his death, which happened a little before that of George Pogebrac, in 1471, who had been king of Bohemia from the year 1458: though secretly a Hussite, he demolished the fortress of Thabor, that it might not serve for a retreat to rebels.

^* The chief works of St. John Capistran are, A Treatise on the Authority of the Pope against the Council of Basil; The Mirror of Priests; A Penitential; On the Last Judgment; On Antichrist and the Spiritual Warfare; with some tracts on points of the civil and canon law. His books on the conception, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on Christ’s passion, (on which see Benedict XIV. de Canoniz. Sanct.,) several against Rockysana, and the Hussites, &c., have never been printed.

^† The victories of Tamerlane over Bajazet, in 1399, had not so weakened the Turks but they raised their heads again in the reign of Mahomet I., who wrested from the Venetians several places of which they were then possessed on the coasts of Asia Minor and in Europe; for their dominions at that time extended from the Capo d’Istria to the walls of Constantinople. In 1420 this conqueror took from them Salonica, the capital of Macedon; which the Greek emperor had given them, because he was not in a condition himself to defend it. Mahomet’s two immediate successors, Amurath II. and Mahomet II., were the greatest conquerors that nation ever produced. The former, nevertheless, met with great checks from Hunniades and Scanderbeg. Hunniades defeated two armies, which he sent to invade Hungary, in 1442, and obtained for king Ladislas IV. a good peace. But that prince, thinking the opportunity of the crusade favor