« הקודםהמשך »
xix. To these disputes of ancient origin were added controversies entirely new, and particularly that famous one concerning the manner in which the very concernbody and blood of Christ were present in the Persican hoor eucharist. It had been hitherto the unanimous Kadert opinion of the church, that the body and blood of Christ were administered to those who received the sacrament of the Lord's supper, and that they were consequently present at that holy institution; but the sentiments of Christians concerning the nature and manner of this presence were various and contradictory, nor had any council determined with precision that important point, or prescribed the manner in which this pretended presence was to be understood. Both reason and folly were hitherto left free in this matter, nor had any imperious mode of faith suspended the exercise of the one, or restrained the extravagance of the other. But in this century, Pascasius Radbert, a monk, and afterward abbot of Corbey, pretended to explain with precision, and to determine with certainty, the doctrine of the church on this head, for which purpose he composed, in the year 831, a treatise concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ." A second edition of this treatise, revised with care, and considerably augmented, was presented in the year 845 to Charles the Bald, and gave principally occasion to the warm and important controversy that ensued. The doctrine of Pascasius amounted in general to the two following propositions. First, that after the consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord's supper, nothing remained of these symbols but the outward figure, under which the body and blood of Christ were really and locally present; and secondly, that the body of Christ thus present in the eucharist was the same body that was born of the Virgin, that suffered upon the cross, and was raised from the dead. This new doctrine, and more especially the second proposition now mentioned, excited, as might well be expected, the astonishment of many. Accordingly it was opposed by Rabanus Maurus, Heribald, and others, though they did not all refute it in the same method, nor upon the same principles. Charles the Bald, upon this
k See Mabillon, Annales Benedict. ii. p. 539. An accurate edition of Radbert's book is published by Martene, in the ixth tome of his Ampliss. Collect. veter. scriptor. p. 378. The life and actions of this wrong-headed divine are treated of at large by Mabillon, in his Acta Sanctor. Ord. Benedict. Šæc. iv. part ii. p. 126, and by the Jesuits in the Acto SS. Antwerp. ad. d xxvi. Aprilis.
casion, ordered the famous Ratramn and Johannes Scotus to draw up a clear and rational explication of that impor. tant doctrine which Radbert seemed to have so egregiously corrupted. These learned divines executed with zeal and diligence the order of the emperor. The treatise of Scotus perished in the ruins of time, but that of Ratramn is still extant," and furnished ample matter of dispute both in the last and present century;"
xx. It is remarkahle that in this controversy each of the And carried contending parties were almost as much divided versary Bert among themselves as they were at variance with
their adversaries. Radbert, who began the dispute contradicts himself in many places, departs from his own principles, and maintains in one part of his book conclusions that he had disavowed in another. His principal adversary Bertramn, or Ratramn, seems in some respects liable to the same charge; he appears to follow in general the doctrine of those, who deny that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the holy sacrament, and to affirm on the contrary that they are only represented by the bread and wine as their signs or symbols. There are however several passages in his book which seem inconsistent with this just and rational notion of the eucharist, or at least as susceptible of different interpretations, and have therefore given rise to various disputes. Johannes Scotus, whose philosophical genius rendered him more accurate, and shed through his writings that logical precision so much wanted, and so highly desirable in polemical productions, was the only disputant in this contest, who expressed his sentiments with perspicuity, method, and consistency, and declared plainly that the bread and wine were the signs and symbols of the absent body and blood of Christ. All the other theologists of his time fluctuate and waver in their opinions, express themselves with ambiguity, and embrace and reject the same tenets at different times, as if they had no fixed or permanent principles concerning the
1 For an account of Ratramn, or Bertramn, and his famous book which has made so much noise in the world, see Fabricius Biblioth. Lai. medii ævi, tom. i. p. 1661.
Pm A new Erlish translation of the book of Bertramn, priest and monk of Core bey, concerning the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the sacrament, was published in Dublin in the year 1753; to which is prefixed a very learned and judicious Historical Dissertation concerning this famous author and his works, in which both are ably defended against the calumnies and fictions of the Roman catbolic writers.
n There is an account, but a partial one, of this controversy in Mabillon's Praf. ad. Sæc. iv. part ii. Benedict. p. viii. which the curious reader will therefore do well to compare with Besnage's Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. I. p. 909.
'matter in question. From all this however it evidently
appears, that there was not as yet in the Latin church any fixed or universally received opinion concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the eucharist.
XXI. The disputants in this controversy charged each other reciprocally with the most odious doctrines, which each party drew by way of consequences, from the tenets they opposed, a method of proceeding as unjust as it is common in all kinds of debate. Hence arose that imaginary heresy, that upon the triumphant progress of the doctrine of transubstantiation in the eleventh century, was branded with the title of Stercoranism, and of which the true origin was as follows. They who, embracing the opinion of Pascasius Radbert, believed that the bread and wine in the sacrament were substantially changed after the consecration, and preserved only their external figure, drew a most unjust conclusion from the opinion of their adversaries, who maintained on the contrary, that the bread and wine preserved their substance, and that Christ's body and blood were only figuratively, and not really present in the eucharist. They alleged that the doctrine of the latter implied, that the body of Christ was digested in the stomach, and was thrown out with the other excrements. But this consequence was quickly retorted upon those that imagined it; for they who denied the metamorphosis of the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, charged the same enormous consequence upon their antagonists who believed this transmutation; and the charge was much more applicable certainly to the latter than to the former. The truth of the matter is, that it was neither truly applicable to the one nor to the other, and their mutual reproaches, most wretchedly founded, show rather à spirit of invective, than a zeal for the truth. The charge of stercoranism is but a malignant invention; it can never, without the most absurd impudence, be brought against those who deny the transmutation of the bread into the body of Christ; it may indeed be charged upon such as allow of this transmutation, though it be a consequence that none of them, who were not frenetic, did perhaps ever avow.
o For an account of the Stereoranists, see Mabillon, Præf. ad Sæc. iv. Benedict. part ii. p. 21. J. Basnage. Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. i. p. 926, and a Treatise of the learned Dr. Pfaff, published at Tubingue in 1750.
XXI. While this controversy was at its greatest height,
another of a quite different kind, and of much sa predestinad more importance arose, whose unhappy conseter on foot by quences are yet felt in the reformed churches.
The subject of this new contest was the doctrine of predestination and divine grace, and its rise is 'universally attributed to Godeschalcus, an illustrious Saxon, who had entered involuntarily into the monastic order in the convent of Fulda, from whence he removed to the monasterv of Orbais, in the diocess of Soissons, where he prosecuted his theological studies with great assiduity, but also with an insatiable desire of sounding the deepest mysteries, and of being wise above what is written. This eminent ecclesiastic, upon his return from Rome, in the year 847, took
up his lodging for some time with count Eberald, one of the first noblemen at the court of the emperor Lothaire, where he discoursed largely concerning the intricate doctrine of predestination in presence of Nothingus, bishop of Verona, and maintained that God, from all eternity, had preordained some to everlasting life, and others to everlasting punishment and misery. Rabanus Maurus, who was by no means his friend, being informed of his propagating this doctrine, opposed him with all his might. To render his opposition more successful, he began by representing Godeschalcus as a corrupter of the true religion, and a forger of monstrous heresies, in some letters addressed to count Eberald, and to the bishop of Verona. And when the accused monk came from Italy into Germany to justify himself against these clamours, and for that purpose appeared at Mentz, of which Rabanus his accuser was archbishop, he was condemned in a council assembled by the latter in that city, A. D. 848, and sent from thence to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, in whose diocess he had received the order of priesthood. Hincmar, who was devoted to the interests of Rabanus, assembled a council at Quiercy, A. D. 849, in which Godeschalcus was condemned a second time, and was also treated in a manner equally repugnant to the principles of religion and the dictates. of humanity. Because he was firm in maintaining his doctrine, which he affirmed, and indeed with truth, to be the doctrine of St. Augustine, the imperious Hincmar degraded him from the priesthood, and was so barbarous as to order him to be whipped with the utmost severity, until
the force of his pain overpowering his constancy, obliged him, according to the commands of his reverend executioners, to burn with his own hands the justification of his opinions which he had presented to the council of Mentz. After these barbarous proceedings, the unfortunate monk was cast into prison in the monastery of Hautvilliers, where he ended his misery and his days in the year 868, or the year following, maintaining with his last breath the doctrine for which he had suffered.
XXII. While Godeschalcus lay in prison, his doctrine gained him followers, his sufferings excited com- The bistory of passion, and both together produceda considera- this contesi. ble schism in the Latin church. Ratramn, monk of Cor. bey, Prudentius, bishop of Troyes, Loup, or Lupus, abbot of Ferrieres, Florus, deacon of Lyons, Remi, archbishop of the same city, with his whole church, all these eminent and illustrious ecclesiastics, with many others whom it would be tedious to mention, pleaded with the utmost zeal and vehemence, both in their writings and in their discourse, the cause of this unhappy monk, and of his condemned opinions. Some indeed confined themselves principally to the defence of his person and conduct; while others went farther, and employed all their zeal, and all their labour in the vindication of his doctrine. On the
opposite side of the question were Hincmar, his uprighteous judge, Amalarius, the celebrated Johannes Scotus, and others, who all maintained that Godeschalcus and his opinions had received the treatment they deserved. As the spirit of controversy ran high between these contending parties, and grew more vehement from day to day, Charles the Bald summoned a new council or synod, which met at Quiercy, A. D. 853, in which, by the credit and influence of Hincmar,the decrees of the former council were confirmed, and of consequence Godeschalcus again condemned. But the decrees of this council were declared null, and deci. sions of a different kind, by which Godeschalcus and his doctrine were vindicated and defended, were substituted in their place in a council assembled at Valence in Dauphiny, A. d. 855. This council was composed of the clergy of three provinces, Lyons, Vienne, and Arles, with Remi, archbishop of Lyons, at their head, and its decrees were confirmed, in the year 859, by the council of Langres, in which the same clergy were assembled, and in 860, by the