m

unhappy in the highest degree, notwithstanding the propensity which the emperor, for political reasons, discovered to the cause of the bishop of Rome. The arrogance of Leo IX. and his insolent letters, excited the highest indignation in the breast of Cerularius, and produced a personal aversion to this audacious pontiff, which inflamed, instead of healing, the wounds of the church; while, on the other hand, the Roman legates gave many and evident proofs, that the design of their embassy was not to restore peace and concord, but to establish among the Greeks the supreme authority and the ghostly dominion of the Roman pontiff. Thus all hopes of a happy conclusion of these miserable divisions entirely vanished; and the Roman legates, finding their efforts ineffectual to overcome the vigorous resistance of Cerularius, they, with the highest insolence, as well as imprudence, excommunicated publicly, in the church of St. Sophia, A. D. 1054, the Grecian patriarch, with Leo of Achrida, and all their adherents; and leaving a written act of their inhuman imprecations and anathemas upon the grand altar of that temple, they shook the dust off their feet, and thus departed. This violent step rendered the evil incurable, which it was before not only possible, but perhaps easy to remedy. The Grecian patriarch imitated the vehemence of the Roman legates, and did from resentment what they had perpetrated from a principle of ambition and arrogance. He excommunicated these legates, with all their adherents and followers, in a public council, and procured an order of the emperor for burning the act of excommunication, which they had pronounced against the Greeks." These vehement measures were followed on both sides with a multitude of controversial writings, that were filled with the most bitter and irritating invectives, and served no other purpose than to add fuel to the flame.

XI. Cerularius added new accusations to the ancient

m He stood greatly in need of the assistance of the Germans and Italians against the Normans, and hoped to obtain it by the good offices of the pope, who was in high credit with the emperor Henry III.

n Beside Baronius and other writers, whose accounts of this period of time are generally known, and not always exact, see Mabillon, Annal. Bened. tom. v. lib. Ix. ad 3. 1053, et Præf. ad Sec. vi. Actor. SS. Benedicti, pars ii. p. 1. Leo Allatius, De Libris Græcor. Ecclesiast. Diss. ii. p. 160, ed Fabricii, et. De perpetua Eccles. Orient. el Occident. Consensione, lib. ii, cap. ix. p. 641. Mich. ie Quien, Oriente Christiano, tom. i. p. 260, et Diss. Damascena prima, § xxxi. p. 16. Hermanni Historia Concertationum de pane azymo et fermentato, p. 59, published at Leipsic in the year 1739. Jo. Bapt. Co. telerius, Monum. Ecclesiæ Græca, tom. ii. p. 108.

charge, which had been brought by Photius against the Latin churches, of which the principal was, that they used unleavened bread in the celebration of the Lord's supper. This accusation, such were the times! was looked upon as a matter of the most serious nature, and of the highest consequence; it was therefore debated between the Greeks and Latins with the utmost vehemence, nor did the Grecian and Roman pontiffs contend with more fury and bitterness about the extent of their power, and the limits of their jurisdiction, than the Greek and Latin churches disputed about the use of unleavened bread. The other heads of accusation that were brought against the Latins by the Grecian pontiff, discovered rather a malignant and contentious spirit, and a profound ignorance of genuine Christianity, than a generous zeal for the cause of truth. He complains, for instance, in the heaviest manner, that the Latins do not abstain from the use of blood, and of things strangled; that their monks eat lard, and permit the use of flesh to such of the brethren as are sick or infirm; that their bishops adorn their fingers with rings as if they were bridegrooms; that their priests are beardless; and that in the rite of baptism they confined themselves to one single immersion." Such were the miserable and trifling objects that excited a fatal schism, and kindled a furious war between the Greeks and Latins, who carried their animosities to the greatest lengths, and loaded each other with reciprocal invectives and imprecations. The attentive reader will form from hence a just idea of the deplorable state of religion both in the eastern and western world at this period, and will see in this dreadful schism, the true origin of the various sects that multiplied the different forms of superstition and error in these unhappy times.

A new contro

ing

XII. This vehement dispute which the Greeks had to carry on against the Latin churches, was well nigh followed by a fatal division among themselves. the sanctiAmidst the straits and difficulties to which the y of images. empire was now reduced by the expenses of war, and the calamities of the times, Alexius not only employed the treasures of the church, in order to answer the exigencies of the state, but ordered also the plates of silver, and the

o See Cerularii Epistola ad Johannem Tranensem in Canisii Lection. Antiq. tom. iii. p. 281, where the reader will also find the refutation of this letter by cardinal Humbert. See likewise Cerularii Epistola ad Petrum Antiochens. in Cotelerii Monumentis Ecclesiæ Græc. tom. ii. p. 138, add to these Martene, Thesaur, Anecdot. tom. v. p. 847.

figures of that metal that adorned the portals of the churches, to be taken down and converted into money. This measure excited the indignation of Leo, bishop of Chalcedon, a man of austere morals, and of an obstinate spirit, who maintained that the emperor, in this step, was guilty of sacrilege; and to prove this charge, published a treatise, in which he affirmed, that in the images of Jesus Christ, and of the saints, there resided a certain kind of inherent sanctity, that was a proper object of religious worship; and that therefore the adoration of Christians ought not to be confined to the persons represented by these images, but extended also to the images themselves. This new controversy excited various tumults and seditions among the people, to suppress which the emperor assembled a council at Constantinople, in which the question was terminated by the following decisions. "That the images of Christ, and of the saints were to he honoured only with a relative worship," which was to be offered, not to the substance or matter of which these images were composed, but to the form and features of which they bore the impression; that the representations of Christ, and of the saints, whether in painting or sculpture, did in no sense partake of the nature of the divine Saviour, or of these holy men, though they were enriched with a certain communication of divine grace; and lastly, that invocation and worship were to be addressed to the saints, only as the servants of Christ, and on account of their relation to him as their master." These decisions, absurd and superstitious as they were, were not enough so for Leo, 'the idolatrous bishop of Chalcedon, who maintained his monstrous system with obstinacy, and was for that reason sent into banishment."

in the Latin

the Lord's sup

XIII. The famous dispute, concerning the presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist was reControversies vived about the middle of this century in the Lachurch about tin church. Hitherto the disputants on both sides had proposed their jarring opinions with the utmost freedom, unrestrained by the despotic voice of authority, since no council had given a definitive sentence upon this matter, nor prescribed a rule of faith to termi

per.

Η Σχεΐνικώς προσκυνημεν, ο λατρευτικώς τας εικόνας.

sq An ample account of this whole matter is given by Anna Comnena, in her Alexiad. lib. v. p. 104, lib. vii. p. 158, edit. Venet. The acts of this council, the very mention of which is omitted by several historians of considerable note, are published by Montfaucon, in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana, p. 103.

nate all inquiry and debate." Hence it was, that in the beginning of this century Leutheric, archbishop of Sens, affirmed, in opposition to the general opinion of the times, that none but the sincere and upright Christian, none but saints and real believers received the body of Christ in the holy sacrament. This opinion, which was broached in the year 1004, was every way proper to excite rumours among the people; but these its natural effects were happily prevented by the influence of Robert, King of France, and the wise counsels of some prudent friends, who hindered the fanatical prelate from disseminating this whimsical invention. It was not so easy to extinguish the zeal, or to stop the mouth of the famous Berenger, principal of the public school at Tours, and afterward archbishop of Angers, a man of a most acute and subtile genius, and highly renowned both on account of his extensive learning and the exemplary sanctity of his life and manners. This eminent ecclesiastic maintained publicly, in the year 1045, the doctrine of Johannes Scotus, opposed warmly the monstrous opinions of Paschasius Radbert, which were adapted to captivate a superstitious multitude by exciting their astonishment, and persevered with a noble obstinacy in teaching, that the bread and wine were not changed into the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, but preserved their natural and essential qualities, and were no more than figures and external symbols of the body and blood of the divine Saviour. This wise and rational doctrine was no sooner published, than it was opposed by certain doctors in France and Germany; but the Roman pontiff, Leo IX. attacked it with peculiar vehemence and fury in the year 1050; and in two councils, the one assembled at Rome, and the other' at Vercelli, had. the doctrine of Berenger solemnly condemned, and the book of Scotus, from which it was drawn, committed to the flames. This example was followed by the council of Paris, which was summoned the very same year by Henry I. and in which

r The various opinions concerning the sacrament of the Lord's supper that were embraced during this century, are collected by Martene from an ancient manuscript, and published in his Voyage Literaire de deux Benedictins de la Congregation de S. Maur. tom. ii. p. 126.

s See Du Boulay, Histor. Acad. Paris. tom. i. p. 354.

t See the Life of Berenger in the Works of Hildebert, archdeacon of Mans, p. 1324. see also Histoire Literaire de la France, tom. viii. p. 197. Boulay, Hist. Acad. Paris. tom. i. p. 304, and the authors mentioned by Fabricius, Biblioth. Lat. medii ævi, tom. i. p. 1570. It is probably by a press error, that Hildebert is styled archbishop, instead of are hdeacon, by Paris, Ilist. lib. i. p. 10, edit. Watts.

Berenger, and his numerous adherents, were menaced with all sorts of evils, both spiritual and temporal. These threats were executed, in part, against this unhappy prelate, whom Henry deprived of all his revenues; but neither threatenings, nor fines, nor synodical decrees could shake the firmness of his mind, or engage him to renounce the doctrine he had embraced.

The pontiffs

strive in vain to put an end to this debate.

XIV. After these proceedings, the controversy was for some years happily suspended, and Berenger, whose patrons were as numerous as his enemies were formidable," enjoyed, for a while, the sweets of liberty and peace. His enemies, however, after the death of Leo IX. rekindled the flame of religious discord, and persuaded his successor Victor II. to examine anew the doctrine of Berenger. The pontiff complied, and sent his legates to two different councils that were assembled at Tours, in the year 1054," for that purpose. In one of these councils the famous Hildebrand, who was afterward Pontiff under the title of Gregory VII. appeared in the character of legate, and opposed the new doctrine with the utmost vehemence. Berenger was also present at this assembly, and overpowered with threats, rather than convinced by reason and argument, he not only abandoned his opinions, but, if we may believe his adversaries, to whose testimony we are confined in this matter, abjured them solemnly, and in consequence of this humbling step, made his peace with the church. This abjuration, however, was far from being sincere, and the docility of Berenger was no more than an act of dissimulation; for soon after this period, he taught anew, though with more circumspection and prudence, the opinions he had formerly professed. That his conduct here appears mean and dishonest, is indeed evident; but we are not sufficiently acquainted with the transactions of these councils to fix precisely the degree of his crime.

xv. The account of Berenger's perfidy being brought to Nicolas II. the exasperated pontiff summoned him to Rome, A. D. 1058, and terrified him in such a manner in the council held there the following year, that he declared his readiness to embrace and adhere to the doctrines which

u His most formidable enemy and rival was Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury. w Other historians mention but one council, and place it in the year 1055.