council of Tousi, in which the bishops of fourteen provinces supported the cause of the persecuted monk, whose death diminished considerably the heat of this intricate controversy.P

What judg

ment we are to form of this controversy.

XXIV. If we attend to the merits of this cause, we shall find that the debate subsists still in all its force, and that the doctrine of Godeschalcus has in our days both able defenders and powerful adversaries. He undoubtedly maintained a twofold predestination, one to everlasting life, and the other to eternal death. He held also, "that God did not desire or will the salvation of all mankind, but that of the elect only; and that Christ did not suffer death for the whole human race, but for that part of it only whom God has predestinated to eternal salvation." These decisions, which carry a severe and rigorous aspect, are softly and favourably interpreted by the followers of Godeschalcus. They deny, for example, that their leader represents God as predestinating to a necessary course of iniquity, those whom he has previously predestinated to eternal misery; and according to them the doctrine of Godeschalcus amounts to no more than this; "that God has from all eternity doomed to everlasting misery such as he foresaw would go on impenitent in a sinful course, and has decreed their ruin in consequence of their sins freely committed and eternally foreseen; that the salutary effects of the mercy of God, and the sufferings of Christ, extend indeed only to the elect, and are made good to them alone; though this mercy and these sufferings, considered in themselves, belong equally to all mankind.” But this contradictory jargon did not satisfy the adversaries of the predestinarian monk; they maintained, on the contrary,that under ambiguous terms and perplexed sentences, Godeschalcus had concealed the most enormous errors, propagating it assiduously as an article of faith, "that God had not only by an original decree predestinated one part of mankind to eternal damnation, but had also pushed them on by an irresistible necessity, by a propellent force, to those crimes and 'transgressions which were proper to

p Besides the common writers who speak of this controversy, the curious reader will do well to consult the more learned and impartial accounts he will find of it in Cesar Egasse de Boulay's Hist. Acad. Paris, tom. i. p. 178. Mabillon, Præf. au Sæc. iv. Benedict. part ii. p. 47. Hist. Literaire de la France, tom. v. p. 352. Usserii Historia Godes chalchi, Hanoviæ 1662, in 8vo. et Dublini 1661, in 4to. Gerhard. Joh. Vossii Historia Pelagiana, lib. vii. cap. iv. And Jo. Alb. Fabricii Biblioth. Latin. medii ævi, tom. iii. p. 210.

render that damnation just." Without determining any thing upon such an intricate and incomprehensible subject, with respect to which silence is the truest wisdom, we shall only observe, that the private quarrels, and mutual hatred, that prevailed between Rabanus Maurus and Godeschalcus, were the real source of the predestinarian controversy, and of all the calamities in which it involved that unfortunate monk.

words trina Deitas.

XXV. Another, though less important controversy arose about this time, concerning the concluding words Hinemar and of a very ancient hymn, which runs thus: Te, Godeschalcus trina Deitas unaque, poscimus, which may be thus wing the cerning translated, O God, who art three, and at the same time but one, we beseech thee, &c. Hincmar wisely prohibited the singing these words in the churches that were under his jurisdiction, from a persuasion that they tended to introduce into the minds of the multitude notions inconsistent with the unity and simplicity of the Supreme Being, and might lead them to imagine that there were three Gods. But the Benedictine monks refused to obey this mandate, and Bertram, who was one of the most eminent of that order, wrote a large book to prove the expression trina Deitas, or threefold Deity, orthodox, from the authority of fathers, which was esteemed the only criterion of truth in these miserable times. Godeschalcus, who now laid in prison, heard of this dispute, entered warmly into it, and in a

q The cause of Godeschalcus has been very learnedly defended by the celebrated Maguin, who published also a valuable edition which is yet extant, of all the treatises that were composed on both sides of this intricate controversy. This interesting collection, which was printed at Paris in the year 1650, in two volumes 4to. bears the following title; Veteram auctorum qui Nono Seculo de Predestinatione et Gratia scripse→ runt, Opera et Fragmenta, cum Historia gemina Præfatione. Cardinal Noris maintained also the cause of the Predestinarian monk with more brevity but less moderation than Maguin. This brief vindication may be seen in the Synopsis Historia Godeschalchana, which is inserted in the fourth volume of the works of that cardinal, p. 677. All the Benedictines, Jansenists, and Augustine monks maintain, almost without exception, that Godeschalcus was most unjustly persecuted and oppressed by Rabanus Maurus. The Jesuits are of a different opinion; they assert in general, and Louis Cellot, one of their order, has in a more particular manner laboured to demonstrate in his Historia Godeschalci Predestinationis, published at Paris in 1655, that the monk in question was justly condemned and deservedly punished.

The parents of Godeschalcus consecrated him to God, by devoting him from his infancy, as was the custom of the times, to the monastic life in the monastery of Fulda. The young monk how ver being arrived at a certain age, seemed much disposed to abandon his retreat, to shake off his religious fetters, and return again into society; but he was prevented from the execution of this purpose by Rabanus Maurus, who kept him against his will in his monastic bonds. Hence a violent contest arose between these two ecclesiastics, in which Lewis the Meek was obliged to interpose, and hence the furious disputes concerning predestination and grace. See Centuria Magdeb. Cent. ix. c. 10. Mabillon, Annal. Bened. tom. ii. ad A. 829, p. 523.

laboured dissertation supported the cause of his Benedictine brethren, on which account Hincmar accused him of Tritheism, and drew up a treatise to prove the charge, and to refute that impious and enormous heresy. This controversy however was but of a short duration, and the exceptionable passage of the hymn in question maintained its credit, notwithstanding all the efforts of Hincmar, and continued, as before, to be sung in the churches."

manner

of Christ's

a subject of

debate.

XXVI. A vain curiosity, and not any design of promoting useful knowledge and true piety, was the main Cher source of the greatest part of the controversies birth becomes that were carried on in this century. And it was more especially this idle curiosity, carried to an indecent and most extravagant length, that gave rise to the controversy concerning the manner in which Christ was born of the Virgin, which began in Germany, and made its way from thence into France. Certain Germans maintained, that Jesus proceeded from his mother's womb in a manner quite different from those general and uniform laws of nature that regulate the birth of the human species; which opinion was no sooner known in France than it was warmly opposed by the famous Ratramn, who wrote a book expressly to prove that Christ entered into the world in the very same way with other mortals, and that his virgin mother bare him, as other women bring forth their offspring. Pascasius Radbert, who was constantly employed either in inventing or patronizing the most extravagant fancies, adopted the opinion of the German doctors, and composed an elaborate treatise to prove that Christ was born without his mother's womb being opened, in the same manner as he came into the chamber where his disciples were assembled after his resurrection, though the door was shut. He also charged those who held the opinion of Ratramn with denying the virginity of Mary. This fruitless dispute was soon hushed, and gave place to controversies of superior moment.'

XXVII. Of all the controversies that divided Christians in this century, the most interesting, though at the The first con- same time the most lamentable, was that which

troversy be

s There is an account of this controversy given by the writers of the life, actions, and doctrines of Godeschalcus.

t See Lucas Dacherius, his Spicilegium veterum Scriptor. tom. i. p. 396. Mabillon, Praf. ad Sac. iv. Benedict. pars ii. p. 51.

Greeks and Latins on the account of Photius.

occasioned the fatal schism between the Greek tween the and Latin churches. A vindictive and jealous spirit of animosity and contention had for a long tíme prevailed between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and had sometimes broke out into acts of violence and rage. The ambition and fury of these contending prelates grew still more keen and vehement about the time of Leo the Isaurian, when the bishops of Constantinople, seconded by the power and authority of the emperors, withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiffs many provinces over which they had hitherto exercised a spiritual dominion." But in this century they arose to an enormous height, and broke forth into a most dreadful flame, in the year 858," when the learned Photius was chosen patriarch of Constantinople, by the emperor Michael, in the place of Ignatius, whom that prince drove from his see and sent into exile. For this violent proceeding, though it was justified and applauded by a council assembled at Constantinople in the year 861, was far from being attended with a general approbation. Ignatius appealed from this council to the Roman pontiff, Nicolas I. who espoused his interests, and in a council assembled at Rome, A. D. 862, excommunicated Photius as unlawfully elected, and his abettors for having been concerned in such an unrighteous cause. The new patriarch however was so far from being terrified or dejected by this excommunication, that he returned the compliment to the Roman pontiff, and in a council assembled at Constantinople, in the year 866, he declared Nicholas unworthy both of the place he held in the church, and also of being admitted to the communion of Christians.

XXVIII. The Roman pontiff alleged a specious pretext for his appearing in this matter with such violence, and exciting such unhappy commotions in the church. This pretext was the innocence of Ignatius, whom, upon an accusation of treason, whether true or false, the emperor had degraded from his patriarchal dignity. This however was but a mere pretext; ambition and interest were the true, though secret springs, that directed the motions of Nicolas, who would have borne with patience, nay, beheld with in

u See Giannone, Histoire de Naples, tom. i. p. 535, 646. Petr. de Marca, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii, lib. i. cap. i. p. 6. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, tom. i. p. 96. w In the original there stands 852, but as this is probably an error of the press, the translator has taken the liberty to correct it in the text. 8

VOL. II.

difference the unjust sufferings of Ignatius, could he but have recovered from the Greeks the provinces of Illyricum, Macedonia, Epirus, Achaia, Thessaly, and Sicily, which the emperor and Photius had removed from the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff. Before he engaged in the cause of Ignatius, he sent a solemn embassy to Constantinople to demand the restitution of these provinces; but his demand was rejected with contempt. And hence, under pretence of avenging the injuries committed against Ignatius, he indulged without restraint his own private resentment, and thus covered with the mask of justice the fury of disappointed ambition and avarice.

lest concerning

XXIX. While things were in this troubled state, and the flame of controversy was growing more violent A second con- from day to day, Basilius the Macedonian, who, son. Photos by the murder of his predecessor, had paved his degraded. way to the imperial throne, calmed at once these tumults, and restored peace to the church, by recalling Ignatius from exile to the high station from which he had been degraded, and by confining Photius in a monastery. This imperial act of authority was solemnly approved and confirmed by a council assembled at Constantinople in the year 869, in which the legates of the Roman pontiff, Adrian II. had great influence, and were treated with the highest marks of distinction. The Latins acknowledged this assembly as the eighth ecumenical council, and in it the religious contests between them and the Greeks were concluded, or at least hushed and suspended. But the controversy concerning the authority of the Roman pontiffs, the limits of their ghostly empire, and particularly their jurisdiction in Bulgaria, still subsisted; nor could all the efforts of papal ambition engage either Ignatius or the emperor to give up Bulgaria, or any other province to the see of Rome.

xxx. The contest that had arisen between the Greeks and Latins concerning the elevation of Photius, was of such a nature as to admit of an easy and effectual remedy. But the haughty and ambitious spirit of this learned and ingenious patriarch, fed the flame of discord instead of extinguishing it, and unhappily perpetuated the troubles and divisions of the Christian church. In the year 866, he added to the see of Constantinople the province of Bulga

xThe writers on both sides of this controversy, are enumerated by Fabricius, in his Biblioth Graca, vol. iv. c. xxxviii. p. 372.