תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

whole, a man of considerable learning and ca- || reluctance.) For, notwithstanding the darkpacity;

Gregory VII. that imperious and arrogant pontiff, of whom we have several productions, beside his Letters.

CHAPTER III.

Concerning the Doctrine of the Christian

in this Century.

ness of the times, and the general ignorance of the true religion, that prevailed in all ranks and orders, yet the very fragments of the Gospel (if we may use that term) which were still read and explained to the people, were sufficient, at least, to convince the most stupid and Churchilliterate, that the religion, which was now imposed upon them, was not the true religion of Jesus; that the discourses, the lives and morals of the clergy, were directly opposite to what the divine Saviour required of his disciples, and to the rules he had laid down for the direction of their conduct; that the pontiffs and bishops abused, in a scandalous manner, their power and opulence; and that the favour of God, and the salvation exhibited in his blessed Gospel, were not to be obtained by performing a round of external ceremonies, by pompous donations to churches and priests, or by founding and enriching monasteries, but by real sanctity of heart and manners.

I. Ir is not necessary to draw at full length the hideous portrait of the religion of this age. It may easily be imagined, that its features were full of deformity, when we consider that its guardians were equally destitute of knowledge and virtue, and that the heads and rulers of the Christian church, instead of exhibiting models of piety, held forth in their conduct scandalous examples of the most flagitious crimes. The people were sunk in the grossest superstition, and employed all their zeal in the worship of images and relics, and in the performance of a trifling round of ceremonies, im- III. It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that posed upon them by the tyranny of a despotic they who undertook, with such zeal and ardour, priesthood. The more learned, it is true, re- the reformation of the church, were not, for the tained still some notions of the truth, which, most part, equal to this arduous and important however, they obscured and corrupted by a enterprise, and that, by avoiding, with more wretched mixture of opinions and precepts, of vehemence than circumspection, certain abuses which some were ludicrous, others pernicious, and defects, they rushed unhappily into the and most of them equally destitute of truth opposite extremes. They all perceived the and utility. There were, no doubt, in several abominable nature of those inventions with places, judicious and pious men, who would which superstition had disfigured the religion have willingly lent a supporting hand to the of Jesus: but they had also lost sight of the declining cause of true religion; but the violent true nature and genius of that celestial reliprejudices of a barbarous age rendered all such || gion, which lay thus disfigured in the hands of attempts not only dangerous, but even despe- a superstitious and dissolute priesthood. They rate: and those chosen spirits, who had escaped were shocked at the absurdities of the estathe general contagion, lay too much concealed, blished worship; but few of them were suffiand had therefore too little influence, to com- ciently acquainted with the sublime precepts bat with success the formidable patrons of im- and doctrines of genuine Christianity, to subpiety and superstition, who were very numer- stitute in the place of that superstitious worous, in all ranks and orders, from the throne ship a rational service. Hence their attempts to the cottage. of reformation, even where they were not wholly unsuccessful, were very imperfect, and produced little more than a motley mixture of truth and falsehood, of wisdom and indiscretion; of which we might allege a multitude of examples. Observing, for instance, that the corruption and licentiousness of the clergy were, in a great measure, occasioned by their excessive opulence and their vast possessions, they rashly conceived the highest ideas of the salutary effects of indigence, and looked upon voluntary poverty as the most eminent and illustrious virtue of a Christian minister. They had also formed to themselves a notion, that the primitive church was to be the standing and perpetual model, according to which the rites, government, and worship of all Christian churches, were to be regulated in all the ages of the world; and that the lives and manners of the holy apostles were to be rigorously followed, in every respect, by all the ministers of Christ. [These notions, which were injudiciously taken up, and blindly entertained (without any regard to the difference of times, places, circumstances, and characters; without considering that the provident wisdom of Christ and his apostles left many regulations to the prudence and piety of the governors of the church,) were productive of many perni

II. Notwithstanding all this, we find, from the time of Gregory VII., several proofs of the zealous efforts of those, who are generally called, by the Protestants, the witnesses of the truth; by whom are meant such pious and judicious Christians, as adhered to the pure religion of the Gospel, and remained uncorrupted amidst the growth of superstition; who deplored the miserable state to which Christianity was reduced, by the alteration of its divine doctrines, and the vices of its profligate ministers; who opposed, with vigour, the tyrannic ambition, both of the lordly pontiff and the aspiring bishops; and in some provinces privately, in others openly, attempted the reformation of a corrupt and idolatrous church, and of a barbarous and superstitious age. This was, indeed, bearing witness to the truth in the noblest manner; and it was principally in Italy and France that the marks of this heroic piety were exhibited. (Nor is it at all surprising that the reigning superstition of the times met with this opposition; it is astonishing, on the contrary, that this opposition was not much greater and more general, and that millions of Christians suffered themselves to be hoodwinked with such a tame submission, and closed their eyes upon the light with so little

cious effects, and threw these good reformers, || much farther, and employed the rules of logic whose zeal was not always according to know- and the subtilties of metaphysical discussion, ledge, from the extreme of superstition into both in explaining the doctrines of Scripture, the extreme of enthusiasm.] Many well-mean- and in proving the truth of their own particuing persons, whose intentions were highly laud- || lar opinions. Hence Lanfranc, the antagonist able, fell into great errors in consequence of of Berenger, and afterwards archbishop of these ill-grounded notions. Justly incensed at Canterbury, introduced into the field of relithe conduct of the superstitious multitude, gious controversy the same philosophical arms, who placed the whole of religion in external and seemed, in general, desirous of employing services, and hoped to secure their salvation the dictates of reason to illustrate and confirm by the performance of a laborious round of the truths of religion. His example, in this unmeaning rites and ceremonies, they rashly respect, was followed by Anselm, his disciple maintained, that true piety was to be strictly and successor in the see of Canterbury, a man confined to the inward motions and affections of a truly metaphysical genius, and capable of of the soul, and to the contemplation of spi- giving the greatest air of dignity and importritual and divine things. In consequence of ance to the first philosopher. Such were the this specious, yet erroneous principle, they beginnings of that philosophical theology, treated with the utmost contempt all the exter- which grew afterwards, by degrees, into a nal parts of religious worship, and even aimed cloudy and enormous system, and, from the at the total suppression of sacraments, churches, public schools in which it was cultivated, acreligious assemblies of every kind, and Chris- quired the name of scholastic divinity.* It is, tian ministers of every order. however, necessary to observe, that the eminent divines, who first set on foot this new species of theology, and thus laudably maintained that most noble and natural connexion of faith with reason, and of religion with philosophy, were much more prudent and moderate than their followers, in the use and application of this conciliatory scheme. They kept, for the most part, within bounds, and

IV. Of the Greek and Latin writers of this age, many employed their learned and pious labours in the exposition and illustration of the Scriptures. Among the Latins, Bruno wrote a commentary on the Book of Psalms, Lanfranc upon the Epistles of St. Paul, Berenger upon the Revelations of St. John, Gregory VII. upon the Gospel of St. Matthew, and others upon other parts of the sacred writ-wisely reflected upon the limits of reason; ings. But all these expositors, in compliance their language was clear; the questions they with the prevailing custom of the times, either proposed were instructive and interesting; they copied the explanations of the ancient com- avoided all discussions that were only proper mentators, or made such whimsical applica- to satisfy a vain and idle curiosity; and, m tions of certain passages of Scripture, both in their disputes and demonstrations, they made, explaining the doctrines, and in inculcating the generally speaking, a wise and sober use of duties of religion, that it is often difficult to pe- the rules of logic, and of the dictates of philoruse their writings without indignation or dis-sophy. [Their followers, on the contrary, gust. The most eminent Grecian expositor was Theophylact, a native of Bulgaria; though || he also is indebted to the ancients, and in a particular manner to St. Chrysostom, for the greatest part of his most judicious observations.* Nor must we pass in silence either the commentary upon the Book of Psalms and the Song of Solomon, that was composed by the learned Michael Psellus, or the chain of commentaries upon the Book of Job, which we owe to the industry of Nicetas.

religious controversy would have been highly lauda-
ble, had not he perverted this respectable science
to the defence of the most monstrous absurdities.
*See Chr. August. Heumanni Præfat. ad Tribbe-
chovii Librum de Doctoribus Scholasticis, p. 14. The
sentiments of the learned, concerning the first au-
thor or inventor of the scholastic divinity, are col-
lected by Jo. Franc. Buddeus, in his Isagoge ad The-
log. tom. i. p. 38.

We shall here transcribe a passage from the works of Lanfranc, who is considered by many as the father of the scholastic system, that the reader

may see how far the first schoolmen surpassed their

V. All the Latin doctors, if we except a few disciples and followers in wisdom, modesty, and canHibernian divines, who blended, with the beau-dour. We take this passage from that prelate's book tiful simplicity of the Gospel, the perplexing concerning the Body and Blood of Christ,* and it is subtilties of an obscure philosophy, had hi- as follows: "Testis mihi Deus est et conscientia mea, therto derived their system of religion, and quia in tractatu divinarum literarum nec proponere nec ad propositas respondere cuperem dialecticas their explications of divine truth, either from quæstiones, vel earum solutiones. Et si quando ma the Scriptures alone, or from these sacred ora- teria disputandi talis est, ut hujus artis regulis valeat enucleatius explicari, in quantum possum, per æquicles explained by the illustrations, and compollentias propositionum tego artem, ne videar mapared with the theology, of the ancient doc gis arte, quam veritate sanctorumque patrum auctors. But in this century certain writers, and, toritate, confidere." Lanfranc here declares, in the among others, the famous Berenger, went most solenn manner, even by an appeal to God and his conscience, that he was so far from having the least inclination to propose or to answer logical questions in the course of his theological labours, that, on the contrary, when he was forced to have recourse to the dialectic science, in order the better to illustrate his subject, he concealed the succours he thence derived with all possible care, lest he should seem to place more confidence in the resources of art than in the simplicity of truth and the authority of the holy fathers. These last words show plainly the two sources from which the Christian doctors had hither

*For an account of Theophylact, see Rich. Simon's Hist. Critique des principaux Commentateurs du N. T. ch. xxviii. p. 390. Critique de la Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, par Du-Pin, tom. i. p. 310, where he also speaks largely of Nicetas and Ecumenius.

Otherwise caned Berengarius, and famous for the noble opposition he made to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which Lanfranc so absurdly pretended to support upon philosophical principles. The attempt of the latter to introduce the rules of logic into

* Cap. vii. p. 236. Op. ed. Luc. Dacherii.

ran with a metaphysical phrensy into the great- || est abuses, and, by the most unjustifiable perversion of a wise and excellent method of searching after, and confirming truth, they banished evidence from religion, common sense from philosophy, and erected a dark and enormous mass of pretended science, in which words passed for ideas, and sounds for sense.]

VI. No sooner was this new method introduced, than the Latin doctors began to reduce all the doctrines of religion into one permanent and connected system, and to treat theology as a science; an enterprise which had hitherto been attempted by none but Taio of Saragossa, a writer of the seventh century, and the learned Damascenus, who flourished among the Greeks in the following age. The Latin doctors had hitherto confined their theological labours to certain branches of the Christian religion, which they illustrated only on certain occasions. The first production which looked like a general system of theology, was that of the celebrated Anselm; this, however, was surpassed by the complete and universal body of divinity, which was composed, toward the conclusion of this century, by Hildebert, archbishop of Tours, who seems to have been regarded both as the first and the best model in this kind of writing, by the innumerable legions of system-makers, who arose in succeeding times. This learned prelate demonstrated first the doctrines of his system by proofs drawn from the Scriptures, and also from the writings of the ancient fathers of the church; and in this he followed the custom that had prevailed in the preceding ages; but he went yet farther, and answered the objections which might be brought against his doctrine, by arguments drawn from reason and philosophy: this part of his method was entirely new, and peculiar to the age in which he lived.f

VII. The moral writers of this century, who to derived all their tenets, and the arguments by which they maintained them, viz. from the Scriptures, which Lanfranc here calls the truth, and from the writings of the ancient fathers of the church. To these two sources of theology and augmentation, a third was added in this century, even the science of logic, which, however, was only employed by the managers of controversy to repulse their adversaries, who came armed with syllogisms, or to remove difficulties which were drawn from reason and from the nature of things. But, in succeeding times, the two former sources were either entirely neglected or sparingly employed, and philosophical demonstration (or, at least, something that bore that name) was regarded as a sufficient support to the truths of religion.

This body of divinity, which was the first complete theological system that had been composed among the Latins, is inserted in the Works of Hildebert, published by Beaugendre, who shows evidently, in his preface, that Peter Lombard, Pullus, and the other writers of theological systems, did no more than servilely follow the traces of Hildebert.

It may not be improper to place here a passage which is taken from a treatise written by Anselm, entitled, Cur Deus homo? since this passage was respected, by the first scholastic divines, as an immutable law in theology; "Sicut rectus ordo exigit," says the learned prelate," ut profunda fidei Christianæ credamus, priusquam ea præsumamus ratione discutere, ita negligentia mihi videtur, si, postquam confirmati sumus in fide, non studemus quod credi mus intelligere:" which amounts to this, That we must first believe without examination, but must afterwards endeavour to understand what we believe.

undertook to unfold the obligations of Christians, and to delineate the nature, the extent, and the various branches of true virtue and evangelical obedience, treated this most excellent of all sciences in a manner quite unsuitable to its dignity and importance. We find sufficient proofs of this in the moral writings of Peter Damian,* and even of the learned Hildebert. The moralists of this age generally confined themselves to a jejune explication of, what are commonly called, the four cardinal virtues, to which they added the ten Commandments, to complete their system. Anselm, the famous prelate of Canterbury, surpassed, indeed, all the moral writers of his time; the books which he composed with a design to promote practical religion, and more especially his Book of Meditations and Prayers, contain many excellent remarks, and some happy thoughts, expressed with much energy and unction. [Nor did the mystic divines satisfy themselves with penetrating, by ecstatic thought and feeling, into the sublime regions of beauty and love; they conceived and brought forth several productions that were destined to diffuse the pure delights of union and communion through enamoured souls.] Johannes Johannellus, a Latin mystic, wrote a treatise concerning Divine Contemplation; and Simeon the younger, who was a Grecian sage of the same visionary class, composed several discourses upon subjects of a like nature.

VIII. In the controversial writings of this century, we observe the effects of the scholastic method that Berenger and Lanfranc had introduced into the study of theology. Wo see divines entering the lists armed with syllogisms which they manage awkwardly, and aiming rather to confound their adversaries by the subtilties of logic, than to convince them by the power of evidence; while those who were unprovided with this philosophical armour, made a still more wretched and despicable figure, fell into the grossest and most perverse blunders, and seem to have written without either thinking of their subject, or of the manner of treating it with success. Damianus, already mentioned, defended the truth of Christianity against the Jews; but his success was not equal either to the warmth of his zeal, or to the uprightness of his intentions, Samuel, a convert from Judaism to Christianity, wrote an elaborate treatise against those of his nation, which is still extant. But the noblest champion that appeared at this period in the cause of religion, was the famous Anselm, who attacked the enemies of Christianity, and the audacious contemners of all religion, in an ingenious work,§ which was perhaps, by its depth and acuteness, above the comprehension of those whom it was designed to convince of their errors. [For it happened, no doubt, in these earlier times, as it frequently does in our days, that many gave themselves out for unbelievers, who knew not the first *See Petrus Damianus, De Virtutibus.

[blocks in formation]

principles of reasoning, and whose incredulity || gree, notwithstanding the propensity which was the fruit of ignorance and presumption, nourished by licentiousness and corruption of heart.]

IX. The famous contest between the Greek and Latin churches, which, though not decided, had however been suspended for a considerable time, was imprudently revived, in 1053, by Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, a man of a restless and turbulent spirit, who blew the flame of religious discord, and widened the fatal breach by new invectives and new accusations. The pretexts that were employed to justify this new rupture, were, zeal for the truth, and an anxious concern about the interests of religion: but its true causes were the arrogance and ambition of the Grecian patriarch and the Roman pontiff. The latter was constantly forming the most artful stratagems to reduce the former under his imperious yoke; and for this purpose, he left no means unemployed to gain over to his side the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, by withdrawing them from the jurisdiction of the see of Constantinople. The tumultuous and unhappy state of the Grecian empire was apparently favourable to his aspiring views, as the friendship of the Roman pontiff was highly useful to the Greeks in their struggles with the Saracens and the Normans, who were settled in Italy. On the other hand, the Grecian pontiff was not only determined to refuse obstinately the least mark of submission to his haughty rival, but was also laying schemes for extending his dominion, and for reducing all the Oriental patriarchs under his supreme jurisdiction. Thus the contending parties were preparing for the field of controversy, when Cerularius began the charge by a warm letter written in his own name, and in the name of Leo, bishop of Acrida, who was his chief counsellor, to John, bishop of Trani, in Apulia; in which he publicly accused the Latins of various errors.* Leo IX., who was then in the papal chair, answered this letter in a most imperious manner; and, not satisfied with showing his high indignation by mere words, he assembled a council at Rome, in which the Greek churches were solemnly excommunicated.t

X. Constantine, surnamed Monomachus, who was now at the head of the Grecian empire, endeavoured to stifle this controversy in its birth, and, for that purpose, desired the Roman pontiff to send legates to Constantinople, to concert measures for restoring and confirming the tranquillity of the church. Three legates were accordingly sent from Rome to that imperial city, who took with them letters from Leo IX. not only to the emperor, but also to the Grecian pontiff. These legates were cardinal Humbert, a man of a high and impetuous spirit, Peter, archbishop of Amalfi, and Frederic, archdeacon and chancellor of the church of Rome. The issue of this congress was unhappy in the highest de

*See an account of those errors, sect. xi. †These letters of Cerularius and Leo are published in the Annals of Baronius, ad annum, 1053.-The former is also inserted by Canisius in his Lection. Antiq. tom. ii. p. 281, ed. nov.-Leonis Concilia, &c.

the emperor, for political reasons,* discovered to the cause of the bishop of Rome. The arrogance of Leo IX., and his insolent letters, excited the highest indignation in the breast of Cerularius, and produced a personal aversion to this audacious pontiff, which inflamed, instead of healing, the wounds of the church; while, on the other hand, the Roman legates gave many and evident proofs, that the design of their embassy was not to restore peace and concord, but to establish among the Greeks the supreme authority and the ghostly dominion of the Roman pontiff. Thus all hopes of a happy conclusion of these miserable divisions entirely vanished; and the Roman legates, finding their efforts ineffectual to overcome the vigorous resistance of Cerularius, very imprudently and insolently excommunicated, in the church of St. Sophia, in 1054, the Grecian patriarch, with Leo of Acrida, and all their adherents; and leaving a written act of their inhuman imprecations and anathemas upon the grand altar of that temple, they shook the dust off their feet, and thus departed. This violent step rendered the evil incurable, which it was before not only possible, but perhaps easy, to remedy. The Grecian patriarch imitated the vehemence of the Roman legates, and did from resentment what they had perpetrated from a principle of ambition and arrogance. He excommunicated these legates with all their adherents and followers in a public council, and procured an order of the emperor for burning the act of excommunication which they had pronounced against the Greeks. These vehement measures were followed on both sides by a multitude of controversial writings, that were filled with the most bitter and irritating invectives, and served no other purpose than to add fuel to the flame.

XI. Cerularius added new accusations to the ancient charges adduced by Photius against the Latin churches; of which the principal was, that they used unleavened bread in the celebration of the Lord's supper. This accusation (such were the times!) was looked upon as a matter of the most serious nature, and of the highest consequence; it was, therefore, debated between the Greeks and Latins with the utmost vehemence, nor did the Grecian and Roman pontiffs contend with more fury and bitterness about the extent of their power, and the limits of their jurisdiction, than the Greek and Latin churches disputed about the use of unleavened bread. The other heads of accusation that were brought against the Latins by

He stood greatly in need of the assistance of the Germans and Italians against the Normans, and hoped to obtain it by the good offices of the pope, who was in high credit with the emperor Henry III. Beside Baronius and other writers, whose ac and not always exact, see Mabillon, Annal. Bened. counts of this period of time are generally known, tom. v. lib. Ix. ad an. 1053, et Præf. ad Sæc. vi. Actor. SS. Benedicti, part ii. p. 1.-Leo Allatius, de libris Græcor. Ecclesiast. Diss. ii, p. 160, ed. Fabricii, et de perpetua Eccles. Orient. et Occident. Consensione lib. ii. cap. ix. p. 614.-Mich. le Quien, Oriens Chris. tianus, tom. i. p. 260, et Diss. Damascena prima, sect. xxxi. p. 16.-Hermanni Historia Concertationum de pane azymo et fermentato, p. 59, published at Leipsic in the year 1739.-Jo. Bapt. Cotelerius Monum. Ecclesiæ Græcæ, tom. ii. p. 108.

the Grecian pontiff, discovered rather a malignant and contentious spirit, and a profound ignorance of genuine Christianity, than a generous zeal for the cause of truth. He complains, for instance, in the heaviest manner, that the Latins did not abstain from the use of blood, and of things strangled; that their monks used to eat lard, and permitted the use of flesh to such of the brethren as were sick or infirm: that their bishops adorned their fingers with rings, as if they were bridegrooms; that their priests were beardless: and that in the ceremony of baptism they confined themselves to one immersion.* Such were the miserable and trifling objects that excited a fatal schism, and kindled a furious war between the Greeks and Latins, who carried their animosities to the greatest lengths, and loaded each other with reciprocal invectives and imprecations. The attentive reader will hence form a just idea of the deplorable state of religion both in the eastern and western world at this period, and will see, in this dreadful schism, the true origin of the various sects that multiplied the different forms of superstition and error in these unhappy times.

"vine Saviour, or of those holy men, though "they were enriched with a certain communi "cation of divine grace; and, lastly, that in"vocation and worship were to be addressed "to the saints, only as the servants of Christ, "and on account of their relation to him, "as their master." These decisions, absurd and superstitious as they were, were not sufficiently so for Leo, the idolatrous bishop of Chalcedon, who maintained his monstrous system with obstinacy, and was, for that reason, sent into banishment.*

XIII. The famous dispute concerning the presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist was revived about the middle of this century in the Latin church. Hitherto the disputants on both sides had proposed their jarring opinions with the utmost freedom, unrestrained by the despotic voice of authority, since no council had given a definitive sentence upon this matter, or prescribed a rule of faith to terminate all inquiry and debate.† Hence it was, that, in the beginning of this century, Leutheric, archbishop of Sens, affirmed, in opposition to the general opinion of the times, that none but the sincere and upright XII. This vehement dispute, which the Christian, none but saints and real believers, Greeks had to carry on against the Latin received the body of Christ in the holy sacrachurch, was nearly followed by a fatal division ment. This opinion, which was broached in among themselves. Amidst the straits and 1004, seemed likely to excite commotions difficulties to which the empire was now re- among the people; but these its natural effects duced by the expenses of war, and the ca- were happily prevented by the influence of lamities of the times, Alexius not only em- Robert, king of France, and the wise counployed the treasures of the church, in order to sels of some prudent friends, who hindered answer the exigencies of the state, but ordered the fanatical prelate from disseminating this also the plates of silver, and the figures of that whimsical invention. It was not so easy to metal that adorned the portals of the churches, extinguish the zeal, or to stop the mouth of to be taken down and converted into money. the famous Berenger, principal of the public This measure excited the indignation of Leo, school at Tours, and afterwards, archbishop of bishop of Chalcedon, a man of austere morals, Angers, a man of a most acute and subtile and of an obstinate spirit, who maintained that genius, and highly renowned both on account the emperor, in this step, was guilty of sacri- of his extensive learning, and the exemplary lege; and, to prove this charge, he published sanctity of his life and manners.§ This emia treatise, in which he affirmed, that in the nent ecclesiastic maintained publicly, in 1045, images of Jesus Christ, and of the saints, there the doctrine of Johannes Scotus; opposed resided a certain kind of inherent sanctity, that warmly the monstrous opinions of Paschasius was a proper object of religious worship; and || Radbert, which were adapted to captivate a that, therefore, the adoration of Christians ought superstitious multitude by exciting their astonnot to be confined to the persons represented || ishment, and persevered with a noble obstinacy by these images, but extended also to the in teaching, that the bread and wine were not images themselves. This new controversy ex- changed into the body and blood of Christ in cited various tumults and seditions among the the eucharist, but preserved their natural and people; to suppress which, the emperor assem- essential qualities, and were no more than bled a council at Constantinople, in which the figures and external symbols of the body and question was terminated by the following de- blood of the divine Saviour. This wise and cisions: "That the images of Christ, and of the rational doctrine was no sooner published, "saints, were to be honoured only with a rela"tive worship,† which was to be offered, not "to the substance or matter of which these "images were composed, but to the form and "features of which they bore the impression; "that the representations of Christ, and of the "saints, whether in painting or sculpture, did "in no sense partake of the nature of the di

* See Cerularii Epistola ad Johannem Tranensem in Canisii Lection. Antiq. tom. iii. p. 281, where the reader will also find the refutation of this letter by cardinal Humbert. See likewise Cerularii Epistola ad Petrum Antiochens, in Cotelerii Monumentis Ecclesiæ Græc. tom. ü. p. 138; add to these Martenne, Thesaur. Anecdot. tom. v. p. 847.

* Σχετικως προσκυνώμεν, ο λατρευτικώς, τας εικόνας.

* An ample account of this whole matter is giver. by Anna Comnena, in her Alexias, lib. v. p. 104, lib. vii. p. 158, edit. Venet.-The acts of this council, the very mention of which is omitted by several histo rians of considerable note, are published by Mcnt faucon, in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana, p. 103.

The various opinions concerning the sacrament of the Lord's supper, that were embraced during this century, are collected by Martenne from an ancient manuscript, and published in his Voyage Literaire de deux Benedictins de la Congregation de S. Maur, tom. ii. p. 126.

See Du Boulay, Histor. Acad. Paris. tom. i. p. 354. See the Life of Berenger in the Works of Hildebert, archdeacon of Mans, p. 1324.-See also Histoire Literaire de la France, tom. viii. p. 197.-Boulay, Hist. Acad. Paris. tom. i. p. 304, and the authors mentioned by Fabricius, Biblioth. Lat. medii ævi, tom. i. p. 570. It is probably by an error of the

« הקודםהמשך »