תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

terness and cruelty. The scene changed again, || of, an anniversary festival, which was called upon the accession of Leo the Armenian to the Feast of Orthodoxy.* the empire, who abolished the decrees of the XVI. The triumph of images, notwithstandNicene council relating to the use and wor- ing the zealous efforts of the Roman pontiffs ship of images, in a council assembled at Con- in their favour, was obtained with much more stantinople, in 814;* without however enacting difficulty among the Latins, than it had been any penal laws against their idolatrous wor- among the Greeks; for the former yet mainshippers. This moderation, far from satisfy-tained the inalienable privilege of judging for ing the patriarch Nicephorus, and the other themselves in religious matters, and were far partisans of image-worship, only served to en- from being disposed to submit their reason im courage their obstinacy, and to increase their plicitly to the decisions of the pontiff, or to insolence; upon which the emperor removed regard any thing as infallible and true, which the haughty prelate from his office, and chas- had authority for its only foundation. The tised the fury of several of his adherents with greater part of the European Christians, as we a deserved punishment. His successor Mi- have seen already, steered a middle course chael, surnamed Balbus, or the Stammerer, between the idolaters and the Iconoclasts, bewas obliged to observe the same conduct, and tween those who were zealous for the worship to depart from the clemency and indulgence of images on the one hand, and those who which, in the beginning of his reign, he had were averse to all use of them on the other. discovered toward the worshippers of images, They were of opinion, that images might be whose idolatry, however, he was far from ap- suffered as the means of aiding the memory of proving. The monks more especially pro- the faithful, and of calling to their rememvoked his indignation by their fanatical rage, brance the pious exploits and the virtuous acand forced him to treat them with particular tions of the persons they represented; but they severity. But the zeal of his son and succes- detested all thoughts of paying them the least sor Theophilus, in discouraging this new ido- marks of religious homage or adoration. Milatry, was still more vehement; for he opposed chael Balbus, when he sent, in 824, a solemn the adorers of images with great violence, and embassy to Louis the Debonnaire, to renew went so far as to put to death some of the more and confirm the treaties of peace and friendobstinate ringleaders of that impetuous faction. ship which had been concluded between his XV. On the death of Theophilus, which predecessors in the empire and Charlemagne, happened in 842, the regency was entrusted to charged his ministers, in a particular manner, the empress Theodora during her son's mino- to bring over the king of the Franks† to the rity. This superstitious princess, fatigued with party of the Iconoclasts, that they might grathe importunate solicitations of the monks, dually suppress, by their united influence, the deluded by their forged miracles, and not a lit- worship of images, and thus restore concord tle influenced also by their insolent threats, and tranquillity to the church. Louis, on this assembled, in the year above-mentioned, a || occasion, assembled a council at Paris, in 824, council at Constantinople, in which the de- in order to examine the proposal of the Grecian crees of the second Nicene council were rein- emperor; in which it was resolved to adhere to stated in their lost authority, and the Greeks the decrees of the council of Frankfort, which were indulged in their corrupt propensity to allowed the use of images in the churches, but image-worship by a law which encouraged severely prohibited the treating of them with that wretched idolatry; so that, after a con- the smallest marks of religious worship. But troversy, which had been carried on during in process of time the European Christians de the space of a hundred and ten years, the parted gradually from the observance of this cause of idolatry triumphed over the dictates injunction, and fell imperceptibly into a blind of reason and Christianity; the whole east, the submission to the decisions of the pope, whose Armenians excepted, bowed down before the influence and authority daily became more victorious images; nor did any of the succeed- formidable; so that, toward the conclusion of ing emperors attempt to cure the Greeks of this superstitious phrensy, or restrain them in the performance of this puerile worship. The council that was holden at Constantinople under Photius, in 879, and which is reckoned by the Greeks the eighth general council, gave a farther degree of force and vigor to idolatry, by maintaining the sanctity of images, and approving, confirming, and renewing the Ni-nimously place this council in 825. It may be procene decrees. The superstitious Greeks, who per to observe, that the proceedings of this council were blind-led by the monks in the most igno- evidently show, that the decisions of the Roman minious manner, esteemed this council as a pontiff were by no means looked upon at this time either as obligatory or infallible; for, when the letmost signal blessing derived to them from the||ter of pope Adrian, in favour of images, was read immédiate interposition of Heaven, and accordingly instituted, in commemoration there

*Fleury and some other writers place the meeting of this council in 815.

†See Fred. Spanheim, Historia Imaginum, sect. viii. p. 845, tom. ii. op.-L'Enfant, Preservatif contre la Reunion avec le Siege de Rome, tom. iii. lett. xiv. p. 147; lett. xviii. xix. p. 509.

*See Gretser's Observat. in Codinum de Officiis Aulæ et Eccles. Constantinopolitanæ, lib. iii. cap. viii.; as also the Ceremoniale Byzantinum, pub lished by Reisk, lib. i. c. xxviii. p. 92. in their letter to him, refusing him the title of emSo Michael and his son Theophilus style Louis peror, to which, however, he had an undoubted right in consequence of the treaties which they now desired to renew.

Fleury, Le Sueur, and other historians, una

in the council, it was almost unanimously rejected, as containing absurd and erroneous opinions. The decrees of the second council of Nice, relating to image-worship, were also censured by the Gallican bishops; and the authority of that council, though received by several popes as an ecumenical one, absolutely rejected; and what is remarkable is, that the pope did not, on this account, declare the Galli. can bishops heretics, or exclude them from the communion of the apostolic see. See Fleury, liv. xlvii

this century, the Gallican clergy began to pay || son, in the above mentioned symbol; nor did a certain kind of religious homage to the they stop here, but despatched to Charlesaintly images, in which their example was magne, in 809, a certain ecclesiastic of their followed by the Germans and other nations.* order, whose name was John, to obtain satisXVII. Notwithstanding this apostasy, the faction in this matter.* The affair was deIconoclasts were not destitute of adherents bated in due form, in a council assembled in among the Latins. Of these, the most eminent that year at Aix-la-Chapelle, and also at was Claudius, bishop of Turin, by birth a Spa- Rome, in the presence of pope Leo III., to niard, and also a disciple of Felix, bishop of whom the emperor had sent ambassadors for Urgel. This zealous prelate, as soon as he that purpose. Leo adopted the doctrine which had obtained the episcopal dignity through the represented the Holy Ghost as proceeding favour of Louis the Debonnaire, began to ex- from the Father and the Son, but he conercise the duties of his function in 823, by demned the addition that had been made to ordering all images, and even the cross, to be the symbol,† and declared it as his opinion, cast out of the churches, and committed to the that filio-que, being evidently an interpolation, flames. The year following he composed a ought to be omitted in reading the symbol, treatise, in which he not only defended these and at length stricken out of it entirely. not vehement proceedings, and declared against every where at once, but in such a prudent the use, as well as the worship, of images, but manner as to prevent disturbance. His sucalso broached several other opinions, that were cessors were of the same opinion; the word, quite contrary to the notions of the multitude, however, being once admitted, not only kept and to the prejudices of the times. He denied, its place in opposition to the Roman pontiffs, among other things, in opposition to the but was by degrees added to the symbol in all Greeks, that the cross was to be honoured with the Latin churches. any kind of worship; he treated relics with the utmost contempt, as absolutely destitute of the virtues that were attributed to them, and censured with great freedom and severity those pilgrimages to the holy land, and those journeys to the tombs of the saints, which, in this century, were looked upon as extremely salutary, and particularly meritorious. This noble stand, in the defence of true religion, drew upon Claudius a multitude of adversaries; the sons of superstition rushed upon him from all quarters; Theodemir, Dungallus, Jonas of Orleans, and Walafrid Strabo,† combined to overwhelm him with their voluminous answers. But the learned and venerable prelate maintained his ground, and supported his cause with such dexterity and force, that it remained triumphant, and gained new credit; and hence it happened, that the city of Turin and the adjacent country were, for a long time after the death of Claudius, much less infected with superstition than the other parts of Europe.

XVIII. The controversy that had been carried on in the preceding century concerning the procession (if we may be allowed to use that term) of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, and also concerning the words filio-que, foisted by the Latins into the creed of Constantinople, broke out now with redoubled vehemence, and from a private dispute became a flaming contest between the Greek and Latin churches. The monks of Jerusalem distinguished themselves in this controversy, and complained particularly of the interpolation of the words filio-que, i. e. and from the

* Mabillon, Annal. Benedictin. tom. ii. p. 488, et Act. Sanctorum Ord. Bened. sæc. iv.-Le Cointe, Annal. Eccles. Francor. tom. iv. ad Annum 824.

In order to do justice to the adversaries of Claudius here mentioned, it is necessary to observe, that they only maintained the innocence and usefulness of images, without pretending to represent them as objects of religious worship.

Mabillon, Annal. Benedictin. tom. ii. p. 488.Præf. ad sæc. iv. Actor. SS. Ord. Benedict. p. 8.-Histoire Liter. de la France, tom. iv. p. 491, and tom. v. p. 27, 64.-Basnage, Histoire des Eglises Reformees, tom. i.

VOL. I.-29

XIX. To these disputes of ancient origin were added controversies entirely new, and particularly that famous one concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ were present in the eucharist. It had been hitherto the unanimous 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, Paschasius Radbert, a monk, and afterwards 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 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 845 to Charles the Bald; and it principally gave occasion to the warm and important controversy that ensued. The doctrine of Paschasius

* See Steph. Baluzii Miscellanea, tom. vii. p. 14. This addition of filio-que to the symbol of Nice and Constantinople, was made in the fifth and sixth centuries by the churches of Spain; and their example was followed by most of the Gallican churches, where the symbol was read and sung with this addition.

↑ See Le Cointe, Annal. Eccles. Francor. tom. iv. ad a. 809.-Longueval, Histoire de l'Eglise Gallicane, tom. v. p. 151.

§ See Mabillon, Annales Benedict. ii. p. 539. An accurate edition of Radbert's book was published by Martenne, in the sixth volume 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. Sæc. iv. part II. 126, and by the Jesuits, in the Acta SS. Antwerp. ad d. xxvi. Április.

blood of Christ. All the other theologians of his time fluctuate and waver in their opinions express themselves with ambiguity, and em brace and reject the same tenets at different times, as if they had no fixed or permanent principles on this subject. Hence it evidently appears, that there was not yet in the Late church any fixed or universally received cpinion concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the eucharist.

amounted, in general, to the two following || the signs and symbols of the absent body ane 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, or on the same principles. Charles the Bald, on this occasion, ordered the famous Ratram and Johannes Scotus to draw up a clear and rational explication of that important doctrine which Radbert seemed to have so egregiously corrupted.* These learned divines executed with zeal and diligence the orders of the emperor. The treatise of Scotus perished in the ruins of time; but that of Ratram is still extant, which furnished ample matter of dispute, both in the last and present century.‡

XX. It is remarkable that in this controversy each of the contending parties were almost as much divided 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 Bertram, or Ratram, seeins 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 are 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

For an account of Ratram, or Bertram, and his famous book which made so much noise in the

world, see the Biblioth. Lat. of Fabricius, tom. i. p.

1661.
A new English translation of the book of
Bertram, (who was a priest and monk of Corbey)
concerning the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the
Sacrament, was published at Dublin in 1752: to
which is prefixed a very learned and judicious his-
torical dissertation respecting this famous author and
his works, in which both are ably defended against
the calumnies and fictions of the Roman Catholic

writers.

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 the imaginary heresy, that, on 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 Paschasius Radbert, believed that the bread and wine in the sacra ment 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 conversion 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 certainly was much more applicable to the latter than to the former. The truth is, that it was neither truly applicable to one nor to the other; and their mutual reproaches, most wretchedly founded, show rather a 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 this transmutation, though it be a consequence that none of them, except those whose intellects were unsound, perhaps ever avowed.*

XXII. While this controversy was at its greatest height, another of a quite different kind, and of much greater importance, arose, whose unhappy consequences 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 mo

There is an account, but a partial one, of this *For an account of the Stercoranists, see Mabillon, controversy in Mabillon's Præf. ad Sæc. iv. part ii. Præf. ad Sæc. iv. Benedict. part ii. p. 21.–J. BasBenedict. p. viii. which the curious reader will nage, Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. i. p. 926, and a Treatherefore do well to compare with Basnage's His-tise of the learned Dr. Pfaff, published at Tubingen toire de l'Eglise, tom. i. 909

in 1750.

nastic order in the convent of Fulda, whence || duct, while others went farther, and employed he removed to the monastery of Orbais, in the all their zeal, and all their labour, in the vindiocese of Soissons, where he prosecuted his dication of his doctrine. On the opposite side theological studies, not only with great assi- of the question were Hincmar, his unrighteous duity, but also with an insatiable desire of judge, Amalarius, the celebrated Johannes sounding the deepest mysteries, and of being Scotus, and others, who all maintained, that wise above what is written." This eminent Godeschalcus and his opinions had received ecclesiastic, upon his return from Rome in the treatment they deserved. As the spirit of 847, took up his lodging for some time with controversy ran high between these contending count Eberald, one of the principal noblemen parties, and grew more vehement from day to at the court of the emperor Lothaire, where day, Charles the Bald summoned a new counhe discoursed largely of the intricate doctrine || cil, or synod, which met at Quiercy in 853, in of predestination in the presence of Nothingus, which, by the credit and influence of Hincbishop of Verona, and maintained that God, mar, the decrees of the former council were from all eternity, had pre-ordained some to confirmed, and in consequence Godeschalcus everlasting life, and others to everlasting was again condemned. But the decrees of this punishment and misery. Rabanus Maurus, council were declared null; and decisions of a who was by no means his friend, being in- different kind, by which he and his doctrine formed of the propagation of this doctrine, op- were vindicated and defended, were enacted posed him with great vigor. To render his in a council assembled at Valence in Dauopposition more successful, he began by repre- phine, in 855. This council was composed of senting Godeschalcus as a corrupter of the the clergy of Lyons, Vienne, and Arles, with true religion, and a forger of monstrous here- || Remi, archbishop of Lyons at their head; and sies, in some letters addressed to count Eberald its decrees were confirmed, in 859, by the and to the bishop of Verona; and when the council of Langres, in which the same clergy accused monk came from Italy into Germany were assembled, and in 860, by the council of to justify himself against these clamours, and Tousi, in which the bishops of fourteen profor that purpose appeared at Mentz, of which vinces supported the cause of the persecuted Rabanus his accuser was archbishop, he was monk, whose death allayed the heat of this incondemned in a council assembled by the latter tricate controversy.* in that city, in 848, and sent thence to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, in whose diocese he had received the order of priesthood. Hincmar, who was devoted to the interests of Rabanus, assembled a council at Quiercy in 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 doc-" Christ did not suffer death for the whole hutrine of St. Augustine, the imperious Hincmar degraded him from the priesthood, and was so barbarous as to order him to be scourged 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 that 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 868, or the following year, maintaining with his last breath the doctrine for which he had suffered.

XXIII. While Godeschalcus lay in prison, his doctrine gained him followers; his sufferings excited compassion, and both together produced a considerable schism in the Latin church. Ratram, monk of Corbey, Prudentius, bishop of Troyes, Loup, or Lupus, abbot of Ferrieres, Florus, deacon of Lyons, Remi, archbishop of the same city, with his whole church, and many other ecclesiastics, 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 con

XXIV. If we attend to the merits of this cause, we shall find that the debate still subsists in all its force, and that the doctrine of Godeschalcus has in our days both able de fenders and powerful adversaries. He undoubtedly maintained a two-fold 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 man"kind, but that of the elect only; and that

"man race, but for those persons only whom "God has predestinated to eternal salvation." These decisions, which carry a severe and rigorous aspect, are softly and favouredly 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 im"penitent 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, con"sidered in themselves, belong equally to all "mankind." But this contradictory jargon

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*Beside the common writers, who speak of this controversy, the curious reader will do well to con sult the more learned and impartial accounts he will find of it in Boulay's Hist. Acad. Paris. tom. i. p. 178.-Mabillon's Præf. ad Sec. iv. Benedict. part ii. P. xlvii.-Hist. Literaire de la France, tom. v. p. Vossii Historia Pelagiana, lib. vii. cap. iv.-Fabricii 352.-Usserii Historia Godeschalci-Gerard, Joh. Biblioth. Latin. medii Ævi, tom. iii. p. 210.

[ocr errors]

did not satisfy the adversaries of the predesti- || dox, from the authority of fathers, esteemed narian monk; they maintained, on the con- the only criterion of truth in those miserable trary, that, under ambiguous terms and per- times. Godeschalcus, who now lay in prison, plexed sentences, Godeschalcus had concealed heard of this dispute, entered warmly into it, the most enormous errors, propagating it assi- and in a laboured dissertation supported the duously as an article of faith, That God had cause of his Benedictine brethren; on which "not only by an original decree predestinated account Hincmar accused him of tritheism, and 86 one part of mankind to eternal damnation, drew up a treatise to prove the charge, and to "but had also pushed them on by an irresisti- refute that impious and enormous heresy. "ble necessity, by a propellent force, to those This controversy, however, was but of a short "crimes and transgressions which were proper duration; and the exceptionable passage of the "to render that damnation just."* Without hymn in question maintained its credit, notdetermining any thing upon such an intricate withstanding all the efforts of Hincmar, and and incomprehensible subject, with respect to continued, as before, to be sung in the which silence is the truest wisdom, we shall churches.* 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 the unfortunate monk.t

XXVI. A vain curiosity, and not any design of promoting useful knowledge and true piety, was the main source of the greatest part of the controversies that were carried on in this century; and it was more especially this idle curiosity, carried to an indecent and most exXXV. Another, though less important, con- travagant length, that gave rise to the controtroversy arose about this time, concerning the versy concerning the manner in which Christ concluding words of a very ancient hymn, was born of the Virgin, which began in Gerwhich runs thus: te, trina Deitas unaque, posci- many, and made its way from that country mus, which may be thus translated, "O God, into France. Certain Germans maintained, who art three, and at the same time but one, that Jesus proceeded from his mother's womb we beseech thee," &c. Hincmar wisely prohi- || in a manner quite different from those general bited the singing of these words in the churches and uniform laws of nature that regulate the that were under his jurisdiction, from a per- birth of the human species; which opinion was suasion that they tended to introduce into the no sooner known in France, than it was warmly minds of the multitude notions inconsistent opposed by the famous Ratram, who wrote a with the unity and simplicity of the Supreme book expressly to prove that Christ entered Being, and might lead them to imagine that into the world in the very same way with there were three Gods. But the Benedictine other mortals, that his Virgin mother bore monks refused to obey this mandate, and Ber- him, as other women bring forth their offspring. tram, who was one of the most eminent of that Paschasius Radbert, who was constantly emorder, wrote a copious work to prove the ex- ployed, either in inventing or patronising the pression trina Deitas, or threefold Deity, ortho- 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 Ratram with denying the virginity of Mary. This fruitless dispute was soon hushed and gave place to controversies of superior moment.†

*The cause of Godeschalcus has been very learnedly defended by the celebrated Maguin, who published also a valuable edition of all the treatises that were composed on both sides of this intricate controversy. This interesting collection, which was printed at Paris in 1650, bears the following title: veterum Auctorum qui Nono Sæculo de Prædestinatione et Gratia scripserunt, Opera et Fragmenta, 'cum Historia et gemina Præfatione.' Cardinal Norris 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 Historiæ Godeschalcanæ, which is inserted in the 4th volume of the works of that car

dinal, p. 677. All the Benedictines, Jansenists, and Augustin 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 Prædestinationis, 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, however, having arrived at a certain age, seemed much disposed to abandon his retreat, to shake off his religious fetters, and to return into society; but he was prevented from the execution of this purpose by Rabanus Maurus, who kept him against his will in his

XXVII. Of all the controversies that divided Christians in this century, the most interesting, though at the same time the most lamentable, was that which occasioned the fatal schism between the Greek and Latin churches. A vindictive and jealous spirit of animosity and contention had long prevailed between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and had sometimes broken out into acts of violence and

rage. The ambition and fury of these con tending prelates became 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

*An account of this controversy is given by the writers of the life, actions, and doctrines of Godes

monastic bonds. Hence a violent contest arose be-
tween these ecclesiastics, in which Louis the De-
bonaire was obliged to interpose; and hence pro-
ceeded the furious disputes concerning predestina-chalcus.
tion and grace. See Centuriæ Magdeb. Cent. ix. c.
10.-Mabillon, Annal. Bened. tom. ii. ad annum 829.

P 523.

† See the Spicilegium veterum Scriptorum, pub. lished by M. d'Acheri, tom. i. p. 396.-Mabillon, Præf. ad Sæc. iv. Benedict. part ii. p. 51.

« הקודםהמשך »