1

illustrious abbot combating the Dialecticians, || lo, two of his archdeacons, who had been edu-
not only in his writings and his conversation, cated in the principles of the ancient theology,
but also by his deeds; arming against them heard him one day disputing, with more sub-
synods and councils, the decrees of the church, tilty than was meet, of the divine nature.
and the laws of the state. The renowned Alarmed at the novelty of his doctrine, they
Abelard, who was as much superior to St. brought a charge of blasphemy against him
Bernard in sagacity and erudition, as he was before pope Eugenius III. who was at that
his inferior in credit and authority, was one time in France; and, to give weight to their
of the first who felt, by a bitter experience, the accusation, they engaged St. Bernard in their
aversion of the lordly abbot to the scholastic cause. The zealous abbot treated the matter
doctors: for, in the year 1121, he was called with his usual vehemence, and opposed Gil-
before the council of Soissons, and before that bert with the utmost severity and bitterness,
of Sens in 1140; in both of which assemblies he first in the council of Paris, A. D. 1147, and
was accused by St. Bernard of the most perni- afterwards in that which was assembled at
cious errors, and was finally condemned as an Rheims in the following year. In the latter
egregious heretic.* The charge brought against council the accused bishop, in order to put an
this subtile and learned monk was, that he had end to the dispute, offered to submit his opi-
notoriously corrupted the doctrine of the nions to the judgment of the assembly, and of
Trinity, blasphemed against the majesty of the Roman pontiff, by whom they were con-
the Holy Ghost, entertained unworthy and demned. The errors attributed to Gilbert were
false conceptions of the person and offices of the fruits of an excessive subtilty, and of
Christ, and the union of the two natures in an extravagant passion for reducing the doc-
him; denied the necessity of the divine grace trines of Christianity under the empire of
to render us virtuous; and, in a word, by his metaphysics and dialectics. He distinguished
doctrines struck at the fundamental principles the divine essence from the Deity, the proper-
of all religion. It must be confessed, by those ties of the three divine persons from the per-
who are acquainted with the writings of Abe- sons themselves, not in reality, but by abstrac-
lard, that he expressed himself in a very singu- tion, in statu rationis, as the metaphysicians
lar and incongruous manner upon several speak; and, in consequence of these distinc-
points of theology; and this, indeed, is one of tions, he denied the incarnation of the divine
the inconveniences to which subtile refine- nature. To these he added other opinions,
ments upon mysterious doctrines frequently derived from the same source, which were ra-
lead. But it is certain, on the other hand, || ther vain, fanciful, and adapted to excite sur-
that St. Bernard, who had much more genius prise by their novelty, than glaringly false, or
than logic, misunderstood some of the opin- really pernicious. These refined notions were
ions of Abelard, and wilfully perverted others: far above the comprehension of good St. Ber-
for the zeal of this good abbot too rarely per- nard, who was by no means accustomed to
mitted him to consult in his decisions the dic- such profound disquisitions, to such intricate
tates of impartial equity; and hence it was, that researches.*
he almost always applauded beyond measure,
and censured without mercy.t

XI. Abelard was not the only scholastic divine who paid dearly for his metaphysical refinement upon the doctrines of the Gospel, and whose logic exposed him to the unrelenting fury of persecution; Gilbert de la Porree, bishop of Poictiers, who had taught theology and philosophy at Paris, and in other places, with the highest applause, met with the same fate. Unfortunately for him, Arnold and Ca* See Bayle's Dictionary, at the article Abelard. Gervais, Vie d'Abelard et d'Heloise.-Mabillon, Annal. Benedict. tom. vi. p. 63, 84, 395.-Martenne, Thesaur. Anecdotor. tom. v. p. 1139.

1F- He affirmed, for example, among other things equally unintelligible and extravagant, that the names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were improper terms, and were only used to express the fulness of the sovereign good; that the Father was the plenitude of power, the Son a certain power, and the Holy Ghost no power at all; that the Holy Ghost was the soul of the world, with other crude fancies of a like nature, mingled, however, with bold truths. 1 See Gervais, Vie d'Abelard, tom. ii. p. 162.Le Clerc, Biblioth. Ancienne et Moderne. tom. ix. p. 352-Dionys. Petav. Dogmata Theolog, tom. i. lib. v. cap. vi. p. 217, as also the works of Bernard, passim. Abelard, who, notwithstanding all his crude notions, was a man of true genius, was undoubtedly worthy of a better fate than that which fell to his lot, and of a more enlightened age than that in which he lived. After passing through the furnace of persecution, and having suffered afflictions of various kinds, of which he has transmitted the history to posterity, he retired to the monastery of Clugni, where he ended his days in the year 1142.

XII. The important science of morality was not now in a very flourishing state, as may be easily imagined when we consider the genius and spirit of that philosophy, which, in this century, reduced all the other sciences under its dominion, and of which we have given some account in the preceding sections. The only moral writer among the Greeks, worthy of mention, is Philip, surnamed the Solitary, whose book, entitled Dioptra, which consists of a dialogue between the body and the soul, is composed with judgment and elegance, and contains many remarks proper to nourish pious and virtuous sentiments.

The Latin moralists of this age may be divided into two classes, the scholastics and mystics.

The former discoursed about virtue, as they did about truth, in the most unfeeling jargon, and generally subjoined their arid system of morals to what they called their didactic theology. The latter treated the duties of morality in a quite different manner; their language was tender, persuasive, and affecting, and their sentiments were often beautiful and sublime; but they taught in a confused and ir

*See Du Boulay, Hist. Acad. Paris. tom. ii. p. 223, 232.-Mabillon, Annal. Benedictin. tom. vi. p. 343. 415, 433.-Gallia Christiana Benedictin. tom. ii. p. 1175.-Matth. Paris, Histor. Major, p. 56.-Peta. vii Dogmata Theologica, tom. i. lib. i. cap. viii.Longueval, Histoire de l'Eglise Gallicane, tom. ix.

p. 147.

regular manner, without method or precision, || selves by their erudition in this famous controand frequently mixed the dross of Platonism with the pure treasures of celestial truth. We might also place in the class of moral writers the greatest part of the commentators and expositors of this century, who, laying aside all attention to the signification of the words used by the sacred writers, and scarcely ever attempting to illustrate the truths which they reveal, or the events which they relate, turned, by forced and allegorical explications, every passage of scripture to practical uses, and drew lessons of morality from every quarter. We could produce many instances of this way of commenting, beside Guibert's Moral Observations on the Book of Job, the Prophecy of Amos, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah.

versy.*
.* Many attempts were made, both at
Rome and Constantinople, to reconcile these
differences, and heal these divisions; and this
union was solicited, in a particular manner, by
the emperors of the Comnene family, who ex-
pected to draw great advantage from the friend-
ship and alliance of the Latins, toward the
support of the Grecian empire, which was at
this time in a declining, and almost in a des-
perate condition. But as the Latins aimed at
nothing less than a despotic supremacy over
the Greek church, and as, on the other hand,
the Grecian bishops could by no means be in-
duced to yield an implicit obedience to the Ro-
man pontiff, or to condemn the measures and
proceedings of their ancestors, the negotia-
tions, undertaken for the restoration of peace,
widened the breach instead of healing it; and
the terms proposed on both sides, but especially
by the Latins, exasperated, instead of calming,
the resentments and animosities of the con-
tending parties.

XIII. Both Greeks and Latins were seized with that enthusiastic passion for dialectical researches, which raged in this century, and were thus rendered extremely fond of captious questions and theological contests; and, at the same time, the love of controversy seduced them from the paths that lead to truth, and XV. Many controversies of inferior moment involved them in labyrinths of uncertainty and were carried on among the Greeks, who were error. The discovery of truth was not, in- extremely fond of disputing, and were scarcely deed, the great object they had in view; their ever without debates upon religious matters. principal aim was to perplex and embarrass We shall not enter into a circumstantial narratheir adversaries, and overwhelm them with tion of these theological contests, which would an enormous heap of fine spun distinctions, an fatigue rather than amuse or instruct; but shall impetuous torrent of words without meaning, confine ourselves to a brief mention of those a long list of formidable authorities, and a spe- which made the greatest noise in the empire. cious train of fallacious consequences, embel- Under the reign of Emanuel Comnenus, whose lished with railings and invectives. The prin- extensive learning was accompanied with an cipal polemic writers among the Greeks were excessive curiosity, several theological controConstantinus Harmenopulus, and Euthymius versies were carried on, in which he himself Zigabenus. The former published a short trea- bore a principal part, and which fomented such tise de Sectis Hæreticorum, i. e. concerning the discords and animosities among a people alSects of Heretics. The latter, in a long and ready exhausted and dejected by intestine tulaboured work, entitled Panoplia, attacked all mults, as threatened their destruction. The the heresies and errors that troubled the first question that exercised the metaphysical church; but, not to mention the extreme le-talent of this over-curious emperor and his subvity and credulity of this writer, his mode of tile doctors, was this:-in what sense was it, disputation was highly defective, and all his or might it be, affirmed that an incarnate God arguments, according to the wretched method was at the same time the offerer and the oblathat now prevailed, were drawn from the tion? When this knotty question had been writings of the ancient doctors, whose autho- long debated, and the emperor had maintainrity supplied the place of evidence. Both these ed, for a considerable time, that solution of authors were sharply censured in a satirical it which was contrary to the opinion generally poem composed by Zonaras. The Latin writ- received, he yielded at length, and embracers were also employed in various branches ofed the popular notion of that unintelligible religious controversy. Honorius of Autun wrote against certain heresies; and Abelard combated them all. The Jews, whose credit was now extremely low, and whose circumstances were miserable in every respect, were refuted by Gilbert de Castilione, Odo, Peter Alfonsus, Rupert of Duytz, Peter Mauritius, Richard of St. Victor, and Peter of Blois, according to the logic of the times, while Euthymius and several other divines directed their polemic force against the Saracens.

XIV. That contest between the Greeks and Latins, the subject of which has been already mentioned, was still carried on by both parties with the greatest obstinacy and vehemence. The Grecian champions were Euthymius, Nicetas, and others of less renown; while the cause of the Latins was vigorously maintained by Anselm, bishop of Havelberg, and Hugo Etherianus, who eminently distinguished them

subject. The consequence of this step was, that many men of eminent abilities and great credit, who had differed from the doctrine of the church upon this article, were deprived of their honours and employments. What the emperor's opinion of this matter was, we are not satisfactorily informed; and we are equally ignorant of the sentiments adopted by the church in this question. It is highly probable that Emanuel, followed by certain learned doctors, differed from the opinions generally received among the Greeks concerning the Lord's supper, and the oblation or sacrifice of Christ in that holy ordinance.

XVI. Some years after this, a still more warm contest arose concerning the sense of these words of Christ, John xiv. 28. 'For * See Leo Allatius, de perpetua Consensione Ec

clesia Oriental. et Occident. lib. ii. cap. xi. p. 644. *

† Nicetas Choniates, Annal. lib. vii. sect. 5.

XVIII. The spirit of controversy raged among the Latins, as well as among the Greeks; and various sentiments concerning the sacrament of the Lord's supper were propagated, not only in the schools, but also in the writings of the learned; for, though all the doctors of the church were now exceedingly desirous of being looked upon as enemies to the system of Berenger, yet inany of them, and among others Rupert of Duytz, differed very little from the sentiments of that great man; at least it is certain, that the famous controversy, which had arisen in the church concerning the opinions of Berenger, had still left the manner of Christ's presence in the eucharist undetermined.

my Father is greater than I,' and divided the || fer the imprecation of the catechism from the Greeks into the most bitter and deplorable fac- God of Mohammed to the pseudo-prophet himtions. To the ancient explications of that im- self, his doctrine, and his sect.* portant passage new illustrations were now added; and the emperor himself, who, from an indifferent prince, had become a wretched divine, published an exposition of that remarkable text, which he obtruded, as the only true sense of the words, upon a council assembled for that purpose, and was desirous of having received as a rule of faith by all the Grecian clergy. He maintained that the words in question related to the flesh that was hidden in Christ, and that was passible, i. e. subject to suffering, and not only ordered this decision to be engraven on tables of stone in the principal church of Constantinople, but also published an edict, in which capital punishinents were denounced against all such as should presume to oppose this explication, or teach any doctrine repugnant to it. This edict, however, expired with the emperor by whom it was issued; and Andronicus, upon his accession to the imperial throne, prohibited all those contests concerning speculative points of theology, that arose from an irregular and wanton curiosity, and suppressed, in a more particular manner, all inquiry into the subject now mentioned, by enacting the severest penalties against such as should in any way contribute to revive this dispute.

XVII. The same theological emperor troubled the church with another controversy concerning the God of Mohammed. The Greek catechisms pronounced an anathema against the Deity worshipped by that false prophet, whom they represented as a solid and spherical Being; for so they translated the Arabian word elsemed, which is applied in the Koran to the Supreme Being, and which indeed is susceptible of that sense, though it also significs eternal. The emperor ordered this anathema to be effaced in the catechism of the Greek church, on account of the high offence it gave to those Mohammedans, who had either been already converted to Christianity, or were disposed to embrace that divine religion, and who were extremely shocked at such an insult of fered to the name of God, with whatever restrictions and conditions it might be attended. The Christian doctors, on the other hand, opposed with resolution and vehemence this imperial order. They observed that the anathema, pronounced in the catechism, had no relation to the nature of God in general, or to the true God in particular; and that, on the contrary, it was solely directed against the error of Mohammed, against that phantom of a divinity which he had imagined; for that impostcr pretended that the Deity could neither be engendered nor engender, whereas the Christians adore God the Father. After the bitterest disputes concerning this abstruse subject, and various efforts to reconcile the contending parties, the bishops assembled in council consented, though with the utmost difficulty, to trans* Κατά την εν αυτή κτίσην και παθη την σάρκα. Nicetas Choniates, Annal. lib. vii. sect. 6, p. 113. Nicetas in Andronico, lib. ii. sect. 5, p. 175. Ολοσφαιρος.

Reland, de religione Mohammedica, lib ii. sect. 3, p. 142.

Rupert had also religious contests of another nature with Anselm, bishop of Laon, William of Champeaux, and their disciples, who maintained their doctrine when they were no more. The divine will and the divine omnipotence were the subjects of this controversy; and the question debated was, "Whether God really willed, and actually produced, all things that exist, or whether there are certain things whose existence he merely permits, and whose production, instead of being the effect of his "will, was contrary to it?" The affirmative of the latter part of this question was maintained by Rupert, while his adversaries affirmed that all things were the effects, not only of the divine power, but also of the divine will. This learned abbot was also accused of having taught that the angels were formed out of darkness; that Christ did not administer his body to Judas, in the last supper; and several other doctrines, contrary to the received opinions of the church.

XIX. These and other controversies of a more private kind, which made little noise in the world, were succeeded, about the year 1140, by one of a more public nature, concerning what was called the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.§ Certain churches in France began, about that time, to celebrate the festival consecrated to this pretended conception, which the English had observed before this period in consequence of the exhortations of Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, as some authors report. The church of Lyons was one of the first that adopted this new festival, which no sooner came to the knowledge of St. Bernard, than he severely censured the canons on account of this innovation, and opposed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin with the greatest vigour, as it supposed her being honoured with a privilege which belonged to Christ alone. Upon this a warm contest arose; some siding with the canons of Lyons, and adopting the new festival, while * Nicet. Chon. Annales, lib. vii. p. 113-116. † Boulay, Hist. Acad. Paris. tom. ii. p. 30.

See the Epistle of Mengoz, published by Martenne, in his Thesaur. Anecdotor. tom. i. p. 290.Jo. Mabillon, Annal. Benedict. tom. vi. p. 19, 42, 168, 261.

The defenders of the Immaculate Conception maintained, that the Virgin Mary was conceived in the womb of her mother with the same purity that is attributed to Christ's conception in her womb.

others adhered to the sentiments of St. Ber- her immaculate conception; for, though St. nard. The controversy, however, notwith- Bernard and others opposed with vigour this standing the zeal of the contending parties, chimerical notion, yet their efforts were counwas carried on, during this century, with a teracted by the superstitious fury of the decertain degree of decency and moderation.luded multitude, whose judgment prevailed But, in subsequent times, when the Domini-over the counsels of the wise; so that, about cans were established in the academy of Paris, the year 1138, there was a solemn festival inthe contest was renewed with the greatest ve-stituted in honour of this pretended conception, hemence, and the same subject was debated, though we neither know by whose authority on both sides, with the utmost animosity and it was established, nor in what place it was contention of mind. The Dominicans declar- first celebrated.* ed for St. Bernard, while the academy patronised the canons of Lyons, and adopted the new festival.

CHAPTER IV.

Concerning the Rites and Ceremonies used in the

Church during this Century.

CHAPTER V.

Concerning the Divisions and Heresies that troubled the Church during this Century.

I. THE Greek and eastern churches were infested with fanatics of different kinds, who gave them much trouble, and engaged them in the most warm and violent contests. Some of these fanatics professed to believe in a double trinity, rejected wedlock, abstained from flesh, treated with the utmost contempt the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, as also all the various branches of external worship; placed the essence of religion in internal prayer alone, and maintained, as it is said, that an evil being, or genius, dwelt in the breast of every mortal, and could be thence expelled by no other method than by perpetual supplications to the Supreme Being. The founder of this enthusiastical sect is said to have been a person called Lucopetrus. His chief disciple was named Tychicus, who corrupted, by false and fanatical interpretations, several books of the sacred writings, and par

I. THE rites and ceremonies used in divine worship, both public and private, were now greatly augmented among the Greeks; and the same superstitious passion for the introduction of new observances, discovered itself in all the eastern churches. The Grecian, Nestorian, and Jacobite pontiffs, who were in any degree remarkable for their credit or ambition, were desirous of transmitting their names to posterity by the invention of some new rite, or by the introduction of some striking change into the method of worship that had hitherto prevailed. This was, indeed, almost the only way left to distinguish themselves in an age when, a due sense of the excellence of genuine religion and substantial piety being almost totally lost, the whole care and attention of an ostentatious clergy, and a superstitious multi-ticularly the Gospel according to St. Mattude, were employed upon the round of external ceremonies and observances substituted in their place. Thus some attempted, though in vain, to render their names immortal, by introducing a new method of reading or reciting the prayers of the church; others changed the church music; some tortured their inventions to find out some new mark of veneration, that might be offered to the relics and images of the saints; while several ecclesiastics did not disdain to employ their time, with the most serious assiduity, in embellishing the garments of the clergy, and in forming the motions and postures they were to observe, and the looks they were to assume, in the celebration of divine worship.

II. We may learn from the book de Divinis Officiis, composed by the famous Rupert, or Robert, of Duytz, what were the rites in use among the Latins during this century, as also the reasons on which they were founded. Ac-| cording to the plan we follow, we cannot here enlarge upon the additions that were made to the doctrinal part of religion. We shall therefore only observe, that the enthusiastic veneration for the Virgin Mary, which had been hitherto carried to such an excessive height, increased now instead of diminishing, since her dignity was at this time considerably augmented by the new fiction or invention relating to

* Sti. Bernardi Epistola 174.-Boulay, Hist. Acad. Paris. tom. ii. p. 135.-Mabillon, Annal. Bened. tom. vi. p. 327.-Dom. Colonia, Hist. Lit. de la Ville de Lyon, tom. ii. p. 233.

thew. It is well known, that enthusiasts of
this kind, who were rather wrong headed than
vicious, lived among the Greeks and Syrians,
especially among the monks, for many ages
before this period, and also in this century.
The accounts, indeed, that have been given
of them, are not in all respects to be depended
upon: and there are several circumstances,
which render it extremely probable, that many
persons of eminent piety, and zeal for genuine
Christianity, were confounded by the Greeks
with these enthusiasts, and ranked in the list of
heretics, merely on account of their opposing
the vicious practices and the insolent tyranny
of the priesthood, and their treating with deri-
sion that motley spectacle of superstition which
was supported by public authority. In Greece,
and in all the eastern provinces, these fanatics
were distinguished by the general and invidi-
ous appellation of Massalians or Euchites, as

Gallia Christiana, tom, i. p. 1198.
Mabillon, Annal. Benedict. tom. vi. p. 327, 412.-

+ Euthymii Triumph. de Secta Massalianorum, in Jac. Tolii Insignibus Itineris Italici, p. 105–125.

Massalians and Euchites are denominations that signify the same thing, and denote, one in the Hebrew, and the other in the Greek language, persons who pray. A sect, under this denomination, arose during the reign of the emperor Constantius, about the year 361, founded by certain monks of Mesopotamia, who dedicated themselves wholly to prayer, and held many of the doctrines attributed by Mo

sheim to the Massalians of the twelfth century. See August. de Hæres. cap. Ivii. and Theod. Hæret. Fab. lib. iv. Epiphanius speaks of another sort of Massalians still more ancient, who were mere Gentiles, acknowledged several gods, yet adored only one

the Latins comprehended all the adversaries of the Roman pontiff under the general terms of Waldenses and Albigenses. It is, however, necessary to observe, that the names abovementioned were very vague and ambiguous in the way they were applied by the Greeks and the Orientals, who made use of them to characterize, without distinction, all such as complained of the multitude of useless ceremonies, and of the vices of the clergy, without any regard to the difference that existed between such persons in point of principles and morals. In short, the righteous and the profligate, the wise and the foolish, were equally compre-church, in order to restore Christianity to its hended under the name of Massalians, whenever they opposed the raging superstition of the times, or considered true and genuine piety as the essence of the Christian character.