[ocr errors]


Appendix. Page 78, Note 1.—The passage quoted from St. Jerome in the text, with the remarkable enumeration which it contains of ten barbarous nations, has been noticed by Bossuet, in his tract “De Excidio Babylonis.” Following up the observations, quoted above, from his commentary on the Apocalypse, he observes : “Sanè magna imperia labefactari solent per magnum quendam ducem, certâ imperii sede profectum. .... Non ita solutum est imperium Romanum; sed nullo certo victore, decem plus minùsve reges totidem regnorum conditores, nullo inter se juncti fædere, prædonum instar Romanas provincias invaserunt, Româque et Italiâ potiti sunt, ubi sedes erat imperii : unde ex provinciis, præsertim occidentalibus, nova regna, eaque amplissima et notissima, et ab omnibus historicis memorata, conflata sunt. .... In promptu est commemorare Visigothos, Hunnos, Herulos, Longobardos, Burgundiones, Francos, Suevos, Alanos .... quasi repente suscitatos. .... Ad hunc regum decem locum Hieronymus alludebat, cùm imperio occidentali Romano, jam ante expugnatam imminentes, Quados, Vandalos, Sarmatas, Alanos, Gepidos, Herulos, Saxones, Burgundos, Alemannos, Pannonios, ad denarium numerum redigebat, ut numeranti patebit.”—Euvres de Bossuet, t. iv. pp. 76, 77 (ed. Versailles, 1815).

[ocr errors]

Page 80, Note 8.-In a note by Dr. Jelf, on that part of Bp. Jewel's Reply to Harding in which he is treating of the supremacy, and of the testimony of Gregory the Great against the title of " Universal Bishop," the reader is advised,” by the learned and careful editor, “to peruse Gregory's Letters upon this subject entire ; he will thus," Dr. Jelf observes, “be still better enabled,” even than by Bp. Jewel's summary,“ to appreciate the nature and extent of that pope's indignation at the very idea of any human being assuming a name which belongs only to Christ himself.” (Works of Bp Jewel, Vol. ii. p. 143, note.) There are not fewer than ten letters of Gregory on this subject, viz., lib. v. ep. 18 (Ad Johannem Episcopum); ep. 19 (Ad Sabinianum Diaconum); ep. 20 (Ad Mauricium Augustum); ep. 21 (Ad Constantinam


[ocr errors]


409 Augustam); ep. 43 (Ad Eulogium et Anastasium Episcopos) ; lib. vii. ep. 27 (Ad Anastasium Episcopum); ep. 3] (Ad Cyriacum Episcopum); ep. 33 (Ad Mauricium Augustum); lib. viii. ep. 30 (Ad Eulogium Episcopum Alexandrinum); lib. xiii. ep. 40 (Ad Cyriacum Patriarcham Constantinopol.).—(Op. t. ii. ed. Bened.)

Page 80, Note 9.–For the origin and history of Odoacer, Theodoric the Ostrogoth, and the Lombards, respectively, see Gibbon, chaps. 34 and 36, chap. 39, and chap. 42.

Page 80, Note 1.–That a minute historical view will bear out the sketch referred to in the Lecture, will appear to any one who will follow out the history in Gibbon. It will there be seen how “ Odoacer was the first barbarian who reigned in Italy, over a people who had once asserted their just superiority above the rest of mankind;" and how, although “ the king of Italy was not unworthy of the high station to which his valour and fortune had exalted him," "a monarchy destitute of national union and hereditary right hastened to its dissolution;" and, 6 after a reign of fourteen years, Odoacer was oppressed by the superior genius of Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths; a hero alike excellent in the arts of peace and prosperity, and whose name still excites and deserves the attention of mankind.” – Chap. 36 (vol. iii. pp. 500. 504).

Following on the history, it will appear how “ Italy revived and flourished under the government of a Gothic king, who might have deserved a statue among the best and bravest of the ancient Romans;" the enterprise »

“ which he undertook having had this for its object in the words which he addressed to Zeno), to rescue “ Italy, the inheritance of the emperor's predecessors, and Rome itself, the head and mistress of the world,” from “the violence and oppression of Odoacer the mercenary."Chap. 39 (vol. iv. pp. 2. 9).

Finally, it will be seen, in the further progress of the history, how “Alboin undertakes the conquest of Italy;" and, under its Lombard oppressors, “the expiring dignity

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

of Rome was only marked by the freedom and energy of her complaints.”—Chap. 45 (vol. iv. pp. 425. 441).

[ocr errors]


Page 82, Note 5.—Mr. Charles Butler enters, at some length, in the Notes subjoined to his historical sketch, on the discussion of “ the lawfulness of the dethronement of Childeric by Pepin, and the lawfulness of the elevation of Charlemagne to the Empire of the West, in exclusion of the Greek emperors." “Few subjects,” he observes, “formerly occasioned more discussion than these questions, and this discussion ” had “ been revived by the” then “recent occurrences in France." He goes on to say, “ It presents two distinct subjects for consideration, the conduct of Pepin and Charlemagne, and the conduct of the Popes."

With regard to the former, he admits that, “I. A more unjust usurpation than that of Pepin can scarcely be imagined.” It was, as he fully proves, “ an act of glaring injustice.” (He contends, on the other hand, that “no objection lies to the justice of Charlemagne's assumption of the Western Empire.”)

“II. In respect to the conduct of the popes towards Pepin and Charlemagne,” Mr. Butler observes, that “the various texts of ancient writers which throw any light on it, are collected by Launoy (Opera, tom. v. pars 2, 1. 12. epist. 9. p. 477–487), and may be seen in the originals, in Dom Bouquet's Collection, tom. v.” He says, that “to suppose that the popes, in the time of Pepin and Charlemagne, assumed a divine right to distribute kingdoms and principalities, is to ascribe to them the Hildebrandine principles, which the Roman see did not profess till three centuries afterwards. But even in the times of Pepin and Charlemagne," he goes on to say, “the popes took on them to pronounce, that there are cases in which it was lawful for subjects to dethrone their sovereign and choose another; and also took on themselves to decide when these cases happened; and to ascribe the justice of the measure, in some degree, to the authority of their decision.” Mr. Butler proceeds to examine Father Daniel's “apology for the pope and his

[ocr errors]


411 adherents ” (Hist. de France, edit. 1755, vol. ii. p. 277), grounded on the necessity or expediency of the case, &c., which he pronounces “an exquisite morsel of casuistry;" for that, in fact, “it is only saying, in other words, that the end sanctified the means; a principle of the most dangerous tendency, and never more dangerous than when, as on an occasion, like that under consideration, it is used to justify injustice done for the supposed good of religion.

“But it is by no means clear,” says Mr. Butler, “ that the popes acted on the principles suggested by Father Daniel. On the contrary, they appear to have decided the question by the genuine whiggish principle of the correlative rights and duties of allegiance and protection. They found that Pepin was in possession of all the powers of government; on the legality of his acquiring or continuing to hold them, their opinion was not required; the only fact stated to them was, that the sovereign power was in the hands of Pepin; with an intimation of the inability of the Merovingian princes to recover it. Upon this statement, their opinion was asked, whether, as Pepin had the power, it was lawful to give him the name, and to acquiesce in his exercising the functions, of king. To this they answered in the affirmative; and their answer, in this view of the case(the italics are Mr. Butler's), “ does them honour.” Mr. Butler refers to the “Abrégé Chronologique de l'Histoire Générale de l'Italie,” by the Abbé St. Marc.

Without entering here upon a discussion, on political grounds, of the questions here raised, it will appear sufficiently, from what has been said, how easily the power claimed by the Papacy might, in the further development of principles and progress of events, be enlisted in behalf of the most revolutionary theories and destructive movements of the “ latter days."

Page 85, Note 4.-After some remarks on “the usurpation of Hugh Capet,” which, Mr. Butler pronounces,

was less objectionable than Pepin’s," he goes on to say (writing in the early part of the present century), “ From



Appendix. Hugh Capet the sceptre of France has been regularly transmitted to our time, in a course of hereditary descent from male to male: we have lived to behold its lamentable end. After a long scene of anarchy, Buonaparte has possessed himself of the vacant throne, and given the French monarchy the more splendid title of an empire; and Pius the Seventh has repeated, in his regard, at Paris, something like the splendid ceremonies which Zachary and Leo performed for Pepin and Charlemagne at Soissons and Rome.”

Mr. Butler proceeds to consider this (at that time) recent instance of fresh relations between the Papacy and a new throne of empire reared out of a Gallican revolution. “ The crimes and horrors of the preceding stages of the French revolution, or the deposition of Lewis the Sixteenth," he says, “it is impossible even to palliate;" but “in defence of Buonaparte's assumption of the sovereign power of France much may be alleged. The throne of France was vacant; the exiled princes had no visible means of regaining it; and it was manifest that nothing, but the strong arm of absolute power, could restore order and good government to the country, &c. &c. . . . . After such a convulsion, if it were not necessary, it certainly was justifiable, for the pope to concur in any measure that tended to quiet the consciences of the timorous and establish general tranquillity. This appears to' be the light in which the part he acted at Buonaparte's coronation should be viewed ; and, viewing it in this light, whatever blame seems imputable to Pope Zachary, none seems to attach to Pope Pius the Seventh.” The further proceedings of the pope and Buonaparte, in the ecclesiastical affairs of France, appealed against by some of the Gallican prelates, as contrary to the canons of the Church, Mr. Butler defends by the “dominium altum, or the right of providing for extraordinary cases by extraordinary acts of authority;" and that“ dominium altum’in the spiritual concerns of the Church," Roman Catholics could not, “consistently with their own principles, deny to the successor of St. Peter."

These passages of history, and the questions arising out

« VorigeDoorgaan »