תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

the Monophysites, in the episcopal residence of that noble city; and, from this period, the Melchites* were without a bishop for almost a whole century.†

ed in the matter, as his consent was not deemed necessary in an affair that related only to the eastern church. In the mean time, Cyrus, who had been promoted by Heraclius from the see of Phasis to that of Alexandria, assembled a council, by the seventh decree of which, the doctrine of Monothelitism, or one will, which the emperor had introduced by the edict already mentioned, was solemnly confirmed. This new modification of the doctrine of the council of Chalcedon, which seemed to bring it nearer to the Eutychian system, had the desired effect upon the Monothelites, and induced great numbers of them, who were dispersed in Egypt, Armenia, and other remote provinces, to return into the bosom of the church. They, however, explained the perplexed and ambiguous doctrine of one will in Christ, in a manner peculiar to themselves, and not quite conformable to the true principles of their sect.

IV. Though the Greek church was already torn asunder by the most lamentable divisions, yet its calamities were far from being at an end. A new sect arose, in 630, under the reign of the emperor Heraclius, which, in a short course of time, excited such violent commotions, as engaged the eastern and western churches to unite their forces in order to its extinction. The source of this tumult was an unseasonable plan of peace and union. Heraclius, considering, with pain, the detriment which the Grecian empire had suffered by the emigration of the persecuted Nestorians, and their settlement in Persia, was ardently desirous of reuniting the Monophysites to the bosom of the Greek church, lest the empire should receive a new wound by their departure from it. He VI. This smiling prospect of peace and contherefore held a conference during the Persian cord was, however, but transitory, and was unwar, in 622, with Paul, a man of great credit happily succeeded by the most dreadful tuand authority among the Armenian Monophy- mults, excited by a monk of Palestine, whose sites; and another, at Hierapolis, in 629, with name was Sophronius. This monk, being preAthanasius, the Catholic or bishop of that sect, sent at the council assembled at Alexandria by upon the methods that seemed most proper to Cyrus, in 633, had violently opposed the derestore tranquillity and concord to a divided cree, which confirmed the doctrine of one will church. Both these persons assured the em- in Christ. His opposition, which was then peror, that they who maintained the doctrine treated with contempt, became more formidable of one nature might be induced to receive the in the following year; when, raised to the padecrees of the council of Chalcedon, and there-triarchal see of Jerusalem, he summoned a counby to terminate their controversy with the Greeks, provided that the latter would give their assent to the truth of the following proposition, namely, that in Jesus Christ there existed, after the union of the two natures, but one will, and one operation. Heraclius communicated this suggestion to Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, who was a Syrian by birth, and whose parents adhered to the doctrine of the Monophysites. This prelate gave it as his opinion, that the doctrine of one will and one operation, after the union of the two natures, might be safely adopted without the least injury to truth, or the smallest detriment to the authority of the council of Chalcedon. In consequence of this, the emperor published an edict, in 630, in favour of that doctrine, and hoped, by this act of authority, to restore peace and concord, both in church and state. V. The first reception of this new project was promising, and things seemed to go on smoothly; for, though some ecclesiastics refused to submit to the imperial edict, Cyrus and Athanasius, the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, received it without hesitation; and the see of Jerusalem was at that time vacant. As to the Roman pontiff, he was entirely overlook

*

cil, in which the Monothelites were condemned as heretics, who had revived and propagated the Eutychian errors concerning the mixture and confusion of the two natures in Christ. Multitudes, alarmed at the cry of heresy raised by this seditious monk, adopted his sentiments; but it was Honorius, the Roman pontiff, that he laboured principally to gain over to his side. His efforts, however, were vain: for Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, having informed Honorius, by a long and artful letter, of the true state of the question, determined that pontiff in favour of the doctrine, which maintained one will and one operation in Christ.* Hence arose those obstinate contests, which rent the church into two sects, and the state into two factions.

VII. In order to put an end to these commotions, Heraclius promulgated, in 639, the famous edict composed by Sergius, and called the Ecthesis, or exposition of the faith, by which all controversies upon the question, whether in Christ there were two operations, or

*The Roman catholic writers have employed all their art and industry to represent the conduct of Honorius in such a manner, as to save his pretended infallibility from the charge of error in a question of such importance. (See, among others, Harduin, de Sacramento Altaris, published in his Opera Selecta, p. 255.) And, indeed, it is easy to find both matter of accusation and defence in the case of this pontiff. On one hand, it would appear that he himself knew not his own sentiments, nor at

The Melchites were those Christians in Syria, Egypt, and the Levant, who, though not Greeks, followed the doctrines and ceremonies of the Greek church. They were called Melchites, i. e. Royalists, by their adversaries, by way of reproach, on account of their im-tached any precise and definite meaning to the expres plicit submission to the edict of the emperor Marcian, in favour of the council of Chalcedon.

Renaud. Hist. Patriarch. Alexandr. p. 168.

sions he used in the course of this controversy. On the other hand, it is certain, that he gave it as his opinion, that in Christ there existed only one will and one operation. It was for this that he was condemned in the counof Constantinople; and he must consequently have been a heretic, if it is true, that general councils cannot See Bossuet's Defence of the Declaration made by the Gallican Clergy, in the year 1682, concerning Eccle siastical Power; and also Easnage, tom. i.

The authors, who have written of this sect, are mentioned by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, in his Biblioth. Græc. vol.cil x. p. 204. The account which I have here given is drawn from the fountain head, and is supported by the best authorities.

§ See Lequien Oriens Christianus, tom. iii. p. 264.

err.

only one, were strictly prohibited, though in || the same edict the doctrine of one will was plainly inculcated. A considerable number of the eastern bishops declared their assent to this new law, which was also submissively received by their chief Pyrrhus, who, on the death of Sergius in 639, was raised to the see of Constantinople. In the west, the case was quite different. John, the fourth pontiff of that name, assembled a council at Rome in 639, in which the Ecthesis was rejected, and the Monothelites were condemned. Nor was this all: for, in the progress of this contest, a new edict, known by the name of Type or Formulary, was published in 648 by the emperor Constans, by the advice of Paul of Constantinople, by which the Ecthesis was suppressed, and the contending parties were commanded to terminate their disputes concerning one will and one || operation in Christ, by observing a profound silence upon that difficult and ambiguous subject. This silence, so wisely commanded in a matter which it was impossible to determine to the satisfaction of the contending parties, appeared highly criminal to the angry and contentious monks. They, therefore, excited Martin, bishop of Rome, to oppose his authority to an edict which hindered them from propagating strife and contention in the church; and their importunities had the desired effect; for this prelate, in a council of a hundred and five bishops assembled at Rome, in 649, condemned both the Ecthesis and the Type, though without any mention of the names of the emperors who had published those edicts, and thundered out the most dreadful anathemas against the Monothelites and their patrons, who were solemnly consigned to the devil and his angels.

VIII. The emperor Constans, justly irritated at these haughty and impudent proceedings of Martin, who treated the imperial laws with such contempt, ordered him to be seised and carried into the isle of Naxos, where he was kept prisoner a whole year. This order, which was followed by much cruel treatment, was executed by Calliopas, exarch of Italy, in 650; and, at the same time, Maximus, the ringleader of the seditious monks, was banished to Bizyca; and other rioters of the same tribe were differently punished in proportion to the part they had acted in this rebellion. These resolute proceedings rendered Eugenius and Vitalianus, the succeeding bishops of Rome, more moderate and prudent than their predecessor had been; especially the latter, who received Constans, on his arrival at Rome in 663, with the highest marks of distinction and respect, and used the wisest precautions to prevent the flame of that unhappy controversy from breaking out a second time. And thus, for several years, it seemed to be extinguished; but it was so only in appearance; it was a lurking flame, which spread itself secretly, and

[blocks in formation]

gave reason, to those who examined things with attention, to dread new commotions both in church and state. To prevent these, Constantine Pogonatus, the son of Constans, in pursuance of the advice of Agatho, the Roman pontiff, summoned, in 680, the sixth œcumenical or general council, in which he permitted the Monothelites, and pope Honorius himself, to be solemnly condemned in presence of the Roman legates, who represented Agatho in that assembly, and confirmed the sentence pronounced by the council, by the sanction of penal laws enacted against such as should dare to oppose it.

IX. It is difficult to give a clear and accurate account of the sentiments of those who were called Monothelites; nor is it easy to point out the objections of their adversaries. Neither of the contending parties express themselves consistently with what seem to have been their respective opinions; and they both disavow the errors with which they reciprocally charge each other. The following observations contain the clearest notion we can form of the state of this subtile controversy. 1. The Monothelites declared, that they had no connexion with the Eutychians and Monophysites; but maintained, in opposition to these two sects, that in Christ there were two distinct natures, which were so united, though without the least mixture or confusion, as to form by their union only one person: 2. They acknowledged that the soul of Christ was endowed with a will, or faculty of volition, which it still retained after its union with the divine nature; for they taught that Christ was not only perfect God, but also perfect man; whence it followed, that his soul was endowed with the faculty of volition: 3. They denied that this faculty of volition in the soul of Christ was absolutely inactive, maintaining, on the contrary, that it co-operated with the divine will: 4. They, therefore, in effect, attributed to our Lord two wills, and these, moreover, operating and active: 5. They, however, affirmed, that, in a certain sense, only one will and one manner of operation were in Christ.

X. We must not indeed imagine, that all, who were distinguished by the title of Monothelites, were unanimous in their sentiments with respect to the points now mentioned. Some, as appears from undoubted testimonies, meant no more than this, that the two wills in Christ were one, i. e. in perfect harmony; that the human will was in perpetual conformity with the divine, and was, consequently, always holy, just, and good; in which opinion there is nothing reprehensible. Others, more nearly approaching the sentiment of the Monophysites, imagined that the two wills or faculties of volition in Christ were blended into one, in that which they called the personal union acknowledging, at the same time, that the distinction between these wills was perceivable by reason, and that it was also necessary to distinguish carefully in this matter. The greatest part of this sect, and those who were also the most remarkable for their subtilty and penetration, were of opinion, that the human will of Christ was the instrument of the di

vine; or, in other words, never operated or || sertions to such as have any acquaintance with acted of itself, but was always ruled, influenc- the history of the church, and the records of ed, and impelled by the divine will; in such a ancient times; for, to all such, the testimonies manner, however, that, when it was once set they allege will appear absolutely fictitious and in motion, decreed and operated with the destitute of authority.* ruling principle. The doctrine of one will, and of one operation in Christ, which the Mo- | nothelites maintained with such invincible obstinacy, was a natural consequence of this hypothesis, since the operation of an instrument and of the being who employs it, is one simple operation, and not two distinct operations or energies. According to this view of things, the Eutychian doctrine was quite out of the question; and the only point of controversy to be determined, was, whether the human will in Christ was a self-moving faculty determined by its own internal impulse, or derived all its motion and operations from the divine.

XII. Neither the sixth general council, in which the Monothelites were condemned, nor the fifth, which had been assembled in the preceding century, had determined any thing concerning ecclesiastical discipline, or religious ceremonies. To supply this defect, a new episcopal assembly was holden in pursuance of the order of Justinian II. in a spacious hall of the imperial palace called Trullus, i. e. Cupola, from the form of the building. This council, which met in 692, was called Quinisextum, as we had occasion to observe formerly, from its being considered, by the Greeks, as a supplement to the fifth and sixth ecumenical counIn the mean time, we may learn from this cils, and as having given to the acts of these controversy, that nothing is more precarious, assemblies the degree of perfection which they and nothing more dangerous and deceitful, had hitherto wanted. There are yet extant a than the religious peace and concord which hundred and two laws, which were enacted in are founded upon ambiguous doctrines, and this council, and which related to the external cemented by obscure and equivocal proposi- celebration of divine worship, the government tions, or articles of faith. The partisans of of the church, and the lives and manners of the council of Chalcedon endeavoured to en- Christians. Six of these are diametrically snare the Monophysites, by proposing their opposite to several opinions and rites of the doctrine in a manner that admitted a double || Romish church; for which reason the pontiffs explication; and, by this imprudent piece of have refused to adopt, without restriction, the cunning, which showed so little reverence for decisions of this council, or to reckon it in the the truth, they involved both the church and number of those called œcumenical, though state in tedious and lamentable divisions. they consider the greatest part of its decrees as worthy of applause.t

XI. The doctrine of the Monothelites, condemned and exploded by the council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge among the * The cause of the Maronites has been pleaded by the Mardaites, a people who inhabited the mounts writers of that nation, such as Abraham Ecchellensis, GaLibanus and Anti-Libanus, and who, about the briel Sionita, and others; but the most ample defence of their uninterrupted orthodoxy was made by Faustus Naiconclusion of this century, were called Maron-ron, partly in his Dissertatio de Origine, Nomine, ac Reites, from Maro their first bishop, a name which ||ligione Maronitarum, published at Rome in 1679, and they still retain. No ancient writers give any Chaldæorum Monumentis, published in 1694. None of partly in his Euoplia Fidei Catholicæ ex Syrorum et certain account of the first person who instruct- the learned, however, appeared to be persuaded by his ared these mountaineers in the doctrine of the guments, except Pagi [*] and La Rocque, of whom the latMonothelites; it is probable, however, from ter has given us, in his Voyage de Syrie et de Mont-Liseveral circumstances, that it was John Maro, the origin of the Maronites. Even the learned Assemaban, tom. ii. p. 28-128, a long dissertation concerning whose name they had adopted.* One thing, nus, himself a Maronite, and who has spared no pains to indeed, we know, with the utmost certainty, defend his nation [+] against the reproach in question, ingefrom the testimony of Tyrius and other unex-nuously acknowledges, that among the arguments used by ceptionable witnesses, as also from the most authentic records,-that the Maronites retained the opinions of the Monothelites until the twelfth century, when, abandoning and renouncing the doctrine of one will in Christ, they were re-admitted, in 1182, to the communion of the Romish church. The most learned of the modern Maronites have left no method unemployed to defend their church against this accusation; they have laboured to prove, by a variety of testimonies, that their ances tors always persevered in the Catholic faith and in their attachment to the pope, without ever adopting the doctrines, either of the Monophysites or Monothelites. But all their efforts are insufficient to prove the truth of these as

*This ecclesiastic received the name of Maro, from his having lived in the character of a monk in the famous convent of St. Maro, upon the borders of the Orontes, before his settlement among the Mardaites. For an ample account of this prelate, see Assemani Biblioth. Orient. Clement. Vatic. tom. i. p. 496.

Nairon and others in favour of the Maronites, there are many destitute of force. See Jo. Morinus, de Ordinat. Sacris, p. 380.-Rich. Simon, Histoire Critique des Chretiens Orientaux, chap. xiii. p. 146.-Euseb. Renaudot, Liturgias Orientales.-Le Brun, Explication de la Messe, Historia Patriarchar. Alexandrinor. p. 179., and Præf. ad tom. ii. The arguments of the contending parties are enumerated impartially, in such a manner as leaves the decision to the reader, by Le Quien, in his Oriens Christianus, tom. iii.

168.

tSee Franc. Pagi Breviar. Pontif. Roman. tom. i. p. 486., and Christ. Lupus, Dissertat. de Concilio Trulliano, in Notis et Dissertat. ad Concilia, tom. iii. op. p. this council:-1. The fifth canon, which approves the The Roman Catholies reject the following decisions of eighty-five apostolical canons commonly attributed to Clement:-2. The thirteenth, which allows the priests to marry:-3. The fifty-fifth, which condemns the Sabbath fast, that was an institution of the Latin church:-4. The sixty-seventh, which prescribes the most rigorous abstinence from blood and things strangled:-5. The eightysecond, which prohibits the representing of Christ under the image of a lamb:-6. The thirty-sixth, concerning the equal rank and authority of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople.

[*] See Critica Baroniana ad A. 694.

tt See Biblioth. Oriental. Vatican. tom. i. p. 496.

[ocr errors]

AN

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY;

BOOK THE THIRD,

CONTAINING THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

FROM

CHARLEMAGNE TO THE REFORMATION BY LUTHER.

THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

PART I

THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.

CHAPTER I.

Concerning the Prosperous Events which happen

ed to the Church in this Century.

I. WHILE the Mohammedans were infesting with their arms, and adding to their conquests, the most flourishing provinces of Asia, and obscuring, as far as their influence could extend, the lustre and glory of the rising church, the Nestorians of Chaldea were carrying the lamp of Christianity among those barbarous nations, called Scythians by the ancients, and by the moderns, Tartars, who, unsubjected to the Saracen yoke, had fixed their habitations within the limits of mount Imaus.* It is now well known, that Timotheus, the Nestorian pontiff, who had been raised to that dignity in 778, converted to the Christian faith, by the ministry of Subchal Jesu, whom he had consecrated bishop, first the Gelee and Dailamites by whom a part of Hyrcania was inhabited; and afterwards, by the labours of other missionaries, the rest of the nations, who had formed settlements in Hyrcania, Bactria, Margiana, and Sogdia. It is also certain, that Christianity enjoyed, in these vast regions, notwithstanding occasional attacks from the Mohammedans, the

The southern regions of Scythia were divided by the ancients (to whom the northern were unknown) into three parts, namely, Scythia within, and Scythia beyond Imaus, and Sarmatia. It is of the first of these three that Dr. Mosheim speaks, as enlightened at this time with the knowledge of the Gospel; and it comprehended Turkestan, the Mongol, Usbeck, Kalmuck, and Nogaian Tartary, which were peopled by the Bactrians, Sogdians, Gandari, Sacs, and Massagetes, not to mention the land of Siberia, Samoiedia, and Nova Zembla, which were

uninhabited in ancient times.

+Thomas Margensis, Historia Monastica, lib. iii, in

Assemani Biblioth. Orient. V tic. tom. iii.

advantages of a firm and solid establishment by whose ministry it was propagated and supfor a long course of ages; while the bishops, ported, were all consecrated by the sole authority of the Nestorian pontiff.

II. If we turn our eyes toward Europe, we find many nations that were yet unenlightened with the knowledge of the Gospel. Almost all the Germans, (if we except the Bavarians, who had embraced Christianity under Theodoric, or Thierry, the son of Clovis, and the eastern Franks, with a few other provinces) lay buried in the grossest darkness of pagan superstition. Many attempts were made, by pious and holy men, to infuse the truth into the minds of these savage Germans; and various efforts were used for the same purpose by kings and princes, whose interest it was to propagate a religion that was so adapted to mitigate and tame the ferocity of those warlike nations; but neither the attempts of pious zeal, nor the efforts of policy, were attended with success. This great work was, however, effected in this century, by the ministry of Winfred, a Benedictine monk, born in England of illustrious parents, and afterwards known by the name of Boniface. This famous ecclesiastic, attended by two companions of his pious labours, passed over into Friseland in 715, to preach the Gospel to the people of that country; but this first attempt was unsuccessful; and a war breaking out between Radbod, the king of that country, and Charles Martel, our zealous missionary returned to England. He resumed, however, his pious undertaking in 719; and being solemnly empowered by the Roman pontiff, Gregory II., to preach the Gospel, not only in Friseland, but all over Ger

many, he performed the functions of a Chris- || half of the truth; but often employed violence tian teacher among the Thuringians, Frise- and terror, and sometimes artifice and fraud, landers, and Hessians, with considerable suc-in order to multiply the number of Christians.

cess.

His epistles, moreover, discover an imperious and arrogant temper, a cunning and insidious turn of mind, an excessive zeal for increasing the honours and pretensions of the sacerdotal order, and a profound ignorance of many things of which the knowledge was absolutely necessary in an apostle, and particularly of the true nature and genius of the Christian religion.

III. This eminent missionary was, in 723,consecrated bishop by Gregory II., who changed the name of Winfred into that of Boniface: seconded also by the powerful protection, and encouraged by the liberality of Charles Martel, mayor of the palace to Chilperic, king of France, he resumed his ministerial labours among the Hessians and Thuringians, and finished with glory the task he had undertaken, V. The famous prelate, of whom we have in which he received considerable assistance been now speaking, was not the only Christian from a number of pious and learned men, minister who attempted to deliver the German who repaired to him from England and nations from the miserable bondage of pagan France. As the Christian churches erected by superstition; several others signalised their Boniface were too numerous to be governed zeal in the same laudable and pious undertakby one bishop, this prelate was advanced to ing. Corbinian, a French Benedictine monk, the dignity of archbishop, in 738, by Gregory after having laboured with great assiduity and III., by whose authority, and the auspicious fervour in planting the Gospel among the Baprotection of Carloman and Pepin, the sons of || varians, and in other countries, became bishop Charles Martel, he founded the bishoprics of of Freysingen.* Firmin, a Gaul by birth, Wurtzburg, Buraburg, Erfort, and Eichstadt, preached the Gospel under various kinds of to which he added, in 744, the famous monas- suffering and opposition in Alsatia, Bavaria, tery of Fulda. His last promotion (the last and Helvetia, now Switzerland, and had inrecompense of his assiduous labours in the spection over a considerable number of monaspropagation of the truth) was his advance-teries.† Lebuin, an Englishman, laboured with ment to the archiepiscopal see of Mentz, in 746, by Zachary, bishop of Rome, by whom he was, at the same time, created primate of Germany and Belgium. In his old age, he returned to Friseland, that he might finish his ministry in the same place where he had entered first upon its functions; but his piety was ill rewarded by that barbarous people, by whom he was murdered in 755, while fifty ecclesiastics, who accompanied him in his journey, shared the same unhappy fate.

We

the most ardent zeal and assiduity to engage
the fierce and warlike Saxons, and also the
Friselanders, Belge, and other nations, to re-
ceive the light of Christianity: but his minis-
try was attended with very little fruit.
pass over in silence several apostles of less
fame; nor is it necessary to mention Willibrod,
and others of superior reputation, who persist-
ed now with great alacrity and constancy in
the labours they had undertaken in the preced-
ing century, in order to the propagation of di-
vine truth.

VI. A war broke out at this time between Charlemagne and the Saxons, which contributed much to the propagation of Christianity, though not by the force of a rational persuasion. The Saxons of that age were a numerous and formidable people, who inhabit

IV. Boniface, on account of his ministerial || labours and holy exploits, was distinguished by the honourable title of the Apostle of the Germans; nor, if we consider impartially the eminent services he rendered to Christianity, will this title appear to have been undeservedly bestowed. But it is necessary to observe, that this eminent prelate was an apostle of modern || ed a considerable part of Germany, and were fashion, and had, in many respects, departed engaged in perpetual quarrels with the Franks from the excellent model exhibited in the con- concerning their boundaries, and other matters duct and ministry of the primitive and true of complaint. Hence Charlemagne turned apostles. Beside his zeal for the glory and his arms against this powerful nation, in 772, authority of the Roman pontiff, which equalled, with a design, not only to subdue that spirit of if it did not surpass, his zeal for the service revolt with which they had so often troubled of Christ and the propagation of his religion, the empire, but also to abolish their idolatrous many other things unworthy of a truly Chris-|| worship, and engage them to embrace the Lan minister are laid to his charge. In com- Christian religion. He hoped, by their conbating the pagan superstitions, he did not al- version, to vanquish their obstinacy, imagining ways use those arms with which the ancient her- that the divine precepts of the Gospel would alds of the Gospel gained such victories in be-assuage their impetuous and restless passions,

*An ample account of this eminent man is to be found in a learned dissertation of Gudenius, de S. Bonifacio Germanorum Apostolo, published at Helmstadt in 1722. See also Fabricii Biblioth. Latina medii Evi, tom. i. p. 709.-Hist. Liter. de la France, tom. iv. p. 92, aud Mabillon, in Annalibus Benedictinis.

The French Benedictine monks ingenuously confess that Boniface was an over-zealous partisan of the Roman pontiff, and attributed more authority to him than was just and reasonable. Their words, in their Histoire Literaire de la France, tom. iv. p. 106, are as follow: Il exprime son devouement pour le Saint Siege en des termes qui ne sont pas assez proportionnes a la dignite du caractere episcopal."

mitigate their ferocity, and induce them to submit quietly to the government of the Franks. These projects were great in idea, but difficult in execution; accordingly, the first

Baronius, Annal. Eccles. tom. viii. ad annum 716. sect. 10. Car. Maichelbeck, Historia Frisingensis, tom. i. + Herm. Bruschii, Chronologia Monaster. German. p. 30. Anton. Pagi Critica in Annales Baronii, tom. ii. ad annum 759, sect. ix. Histoire Literaire de la France, tom. iv. p. 124.

Hucbaldi Vita S. Lebuini in Laur. Surii Vitis Sanctor. d. 12. Nov. p. 277.-Jo. Molleri Cimbria Literata, tom. ii. p. 464.

« הקודםהמשך »