and explained to the people; and never at- The Greeks were not so destitute of systetempted to exercise their capacities upon thematical divines as the Latins. John Damascerest of the divine word. The greatest part of nus composed a complete body of the Christhe clergy also, instead of composing them-tian doctrine in a scientifical method, under selves the discourses they recited in public, the title of Four Books concerning the Orthoconfined themselves to the book of homilies, dox Faith. The two kinds of theology, which published by the authority of their sovereign, the Latins termed scholastic and didactic, were and thus suffered their talents to lie unculti-united in this laborious performance, in which vated and unemployed. the author not only explains the doctrines he delivers by subtile and profound reasoning, but also confirms his explications by the authority of the ancient doctors. This book was received among the Greeks with the highest applause, and was so excessively admired, that at length it came to be acknowledged among that people as the only rule of divine truth. Many, however, complain of this applauded writer, as having consulted more, in his theological system, the conjectures of human reason and the opinions of the ancients, than the genuine dictates of the sacred oracles, and of having, in consequence of this method, deviated from the true source and the essential principles of theology.* To the work of Damascenus now mentioned, we may add his Sacred Parallels, in which he has collected, with uncommon care and industry, the opinions of the ancient doctors concerning various points of the Christian religion. We may, therefore, look upon this writer as the Thomas and Lombard of the Greeks. VI. None of the Latins carried their theological enterprises so far as to give a complete, connected, and accurate system of the various doctrines of Christianity. It would be absurd to comprehend, under this title, the various discourses concerning the person and nature of Christ, which were designed to refute the errors of Felix* and Elipand, or to combat the opinions which were now spread abroad concerning the origin of the Holy Ghost,† and several other points; since these discourses afford no proofs either of precision or diligence in their authors. The labours and industry of the divines of this age were wholly employed in collecting the opinions and authorities of the fathers, by whom are meant the theological writers of the first six centuries; and so blind and servile was their veneration for these doctors, that they regarded their dictates as infallible, and their writings as the boundaries of truth, beyond which reason was not permitted to push its researches. The Irish, or Hibernians, who in this century were known by the VII. None of the moral writers of this cenname of Scots, were the only divines who re-tury attempted to form a complete system of fused to dishonour their reason by subjecting it implicitly to the dictates of authority. Naturally subtile and sagacious, they applied their philosophy (such as it was) to the illustration of the truth and doctrines of religion; a method which was almost generally abhorred and exploded by all other nations. The error now published relating to the Holy Ghost was, that it proceeded from the Father only, and not from the Father and the Son. the duties and virtues of the Christian life John, surnamed Carpathius, a Greek writer, composed some exhortatory discourses, in which there are scarcely any marks of judgment or genius. Among the monastic orders nothing was relished but the enthusiastic strains of the Mystics, and the doctrines of Dionysius the Areopagite, their pretended chief, whose supposititious writings were interpreted and explained by Johannes Darensis out of complaisance to the monks. The Latin writers confined their labours in morality to some general precepts concerning virtue and vice, which seemed rather intended to regulate the external actions of Christians, than to purify their inward principles, or to fix duty upon its proper foundations. Their precepts also, such That the Hibernians, who were called Scots in this century, were lovers of learning, and distinguished themselves, in those times of ignorance, by the culture of the sciences beyond all the other European nations, travelling tor Deorum: si autem abnuerit, personarum denegator through the most distant lands, both with a view to im- culpetur." It was with such miserable sophistry, that prove and to communicate their knowledge, is a fact with these subtile divines puzzled and tormented their disciples which I have long been acquainted, as we see them, in the and hearers, accusing those of Tritheism who admitted most authentic records of antiquity, discharging, with their argument, and casting the reproach of Sabellianism the highest reputation and applause, the doctorial func- upon those who rejected it. For thus they reasoned, or tion in France, Germany, and Italy, both during this and rather quibbled; "You must either affirm or deny that the following century. But that these Hibernians were the three Persons in the Deity are three substances. If he first teachers of the scholastic theology in Europe, and, you affirm it, you are undoubtedly a Tritheist, and worso early as the eighth century, illustrated the doctrines of ship three Gods: if you deny it, this denial implies that religion by the principles of philosophy, I learned but they are not three distinct persons, and thus you fall into lately from the testimony of Benedict, abbot of Aniane, Sabellianism." Benedict condemns this Hibernian subwho lived in this period. This learned abbot, in his Let- tilty, and severely animadverts upon the introduction of ter to Guarnarius, p. 54, expresses himself thus: "Apud it into theology; he also recommends in its place that amimodernos scholasticos (i. e. public teachers, or school-able simplicity which is so conformable to the nature and masters) maxime apud Scotos est syllogismus delusionis, genius of the Gospel:-"Sed hæc de fide (says he) et om ut dicant, Trinitatem, sicut personarum, ita esse substan- nis calliditatis versutia, simplicitate fidei catholicæ et putiarum;" (by this it appears, that the Irish divines made ritate, vitanda, non captiosa interjectione linguarum, scæuse of a certain syllogism, which Benedict calls delusive, va impactione interpolanda." Hence it appears, that the i. e. fallacious and sophistical, to demonstrate that the per- philosophical or scholastic theology, among the Latins, is sons in the Godhead were substances; a captious syllo- of more ancient date than is commonly imagined. gism this, as we may see from what follows, and also every way proper to throw the ignorant into the greatest perplexity) "quatenus si adsenserit illectus auditor, Trinitatem esse trium substantiarum Deum, trium derogetur cul *Jo. Henr. Hottinger. Bibliothecar. Quadripart. lib. iii. cap. ii. sect. iii. p. 372.-Mart. Chemnitius, de Usu et Utilitate Locor. Commun. P 26. † Assemani Biblioth. Oriental. Vatican. tom. ii. p. 120 as they were, and their manner of explaining them, had now imbibed a strong tincture of the Peripatetic philosophy, as appears from certain tracts of Bede, and the treatise of Alcuin concerning virtue and vice.* That the people, however, might be animated to the pursuit of virtue by the commanding power of example, Bede, Florus, Alcuin, Marcellinus, Ambrose, Authpert, and others, employed their pious industry in writing the lives of such as had been eminent for their piety and worthy deeds. words. He ordered six pictures, representing the six general councils, to be placed in the porch of St. Peter's church; and that no ac of rebellion or arrogance might be left unemployed, he assembled a council at Rome, in which he caused the emperor himself to be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These first tumults were quelled by a revolution, which, in the following year, deprived Bardanes of the imperial throne.* X. The dispute, however, broke out with redoubled fury under Leo the Isaurian, a prince VIII. The controversies that turned upon of the greatest resolution and intrepidity; and the main and essential points of religion were, the new tumults which it excited were both during this century, few in number; and violent and durable. Leo, unable to bear any scarcely any of them were managed with tole- longer the excessive height to which the rable sagacity or judgment. The greatest part|| Greeks carried their superstitious attachment of the Greeks were involved in the dispute to the worship of images, and the sharp raille concerning images, in which their reasonings ries and serious reproaches which this idolawere utterly destitute of precision and perspi- trous service drew upon the Christians from cuity, while the Latins employed their chief the Jews and Saracens, resolved, by the most zeal and industry in confuting and extirpating vigorous proceedings, to root out at once this the doctrine of Elipand concerning the person growing evil. For this purpose he issued an of Christ. John Damascenus exposed the er-edict in 726, by which it was ordered, not only rors of all the different sects in a short but that the worship of images should be abrogatuseful and interesting treatise; he also attack-ed and relinquished, but also that all the imed the Manichæans and Nestorians with a particular vehemence, and even went so far in his polemic labours, as to combat the erroneous doctrines of the Saracens. In these compositions we find several proofs of subtilty and genius, but very little of that clearness and sim-dence, which avoids precipitancy where prejuplicity that constitute the chief merit of po- dices are to be combated, and destroys and unlemic writings. The Jews were left almost dermines inveterate superstitions rather by unmolested, as the Christians were sufficiently slow and imperceptible attacks, than by open employed by the controversies that had arisen and violent assaults. The imperial edict proamong themselves: Anastasius, abbot of Pales-duced such effects as might have been expecttine, however, made some attempts to subdue ed from the frantic enthusiasm of a supersti the infidelity of that obstinate people. tious people. A civil war broke out in the ages, except that of Christ's crucifixion, should be removed out of the churches. In this proceeding the emperor acted more from the impulse of his natural character, which was warm and vehement, than from the dictates of pru cipally in consequence of the perfidious suggestions of the priests and monks, who had artfully rendered the worship of images a source of opulence to their churches and cloisters, were led to regard the emperor as an apostate; and hence they considered themselves as freed from their oath of allegiance, and from all the obligations which attach subjects to their lawful sovereign. XI. The Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and III., were the authors and ringleaders of these civil commotions and insurrections in Italy. The former, on the emperor's refusing to revoke his edict against images, declared him, IX. Of all the controversies which agitated islands of the Archipelago, ravaged a part of and perplexed the Christian church during this|| Asia, and afterwards reached Italy. The peocentury, that which arose concerning the wor-ple, partly from their own ignorance, but prinship of images in Greece, and was thence carried into both the eastern and western provinces, was the most unhappy and pernicious in its consequences. The first sparks of this terrible flame, which threatened ruin both to the interests of religion and government, had already appeared under the reign of Philippicus Bardanes, who was created emperor of the Greeks soon after the commencement of this century. This prince, with the consent of John patriarch of Constantinople, ordered a picture, which represented the sixth general council, to be pulled down from its place in the church of Sophia, in 712, because this council had condemned the Monothelites, whose cause the emperor espoused with the greatest ardour and vehemence. Nor did Bardanes stop here; but sent immediately an order to Rome to remove all representations of that nature from the churches and other places of worship. His orders, however, were far from being received with submission, or producing their designed effect: on the contrary, Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only rejected, by a formal protest, the imperial edict, but resolved to express his contempt of it by his actions as well as his also the Annales Italia by Muratori, vol. iv.-Maim *See Fred. Spanhemii Historia Imaginum restituta; bourg's history of this controversy is full of the most absurd and malignant fictions. In this account of the imperial edict, Dr. Mo sheim follows the opinions of Baronius, Fleury, and Le Sueur. Others affirm, with greater probability, that this famous edict did not enjoin the pulling down images every where, and casting them out of the churches, but only prohibited the paying to them any kind of adoration or to the use of images, as ornaments, or even as helps to worship. It would seem as if Leo was not, at first, averse devotion and memory; for, at the same time that he for bade them to be worshipped, he ordered them to be placed higher in the churches, some say, to avoid this adoration; but afterwards finding that they were the occasion of This treatise is extant in the works of Alcuin, pub- | idolatry, he caused them to be removed from the churches ished by Quercetanus, tom. ii. p. 1218 il and broken. XII. Constantine, to whom the furious tribe of the image-worshippers had given by way of derision the name of Copronymus,* succeeded his father Leo in the empire, in 741, and, animated with an equal zeal and ardour against the new idolatry, employed all his influence for the abolition of the worship of images, in opposition to the vigorous efforts of the Ro man pontiffs and the superstitious monks. His manner of proceeding was attended with greater marks of equity and moderation, than had appeared in the measures pursued by Leo: for, knowing the respect which the Greeks had for the decisions of general councils, whose authority they considered as supreme and unlimited in religious matters, he assembled at Constantinople, in 754, a council composed of the eastern bishops, in order to have this important question examined with the utmost care, and decided with wisdom, seconded by a just and lawful authority. This assembly, which the Greeks regard as the seventh œcumenical council, gave judgment, as was the custom of those times, in favour of the opinion embraced by the emperor, and solemnly condemned the worship and also the use of without hesitation, unworthy of the name and privileges of a Christian, and thus excluded him from the communion of the church; and no sooner was this formidable sentence made public, than the Romans, and other Italian communities, that were subject to the Grecian empire, violated their allegiance, and, rising in arms, either massacred or banished all the emperor's deputies and officers. Leo, exasperated by these insolent proceedings, resolved to chastise the Italian rebels, and to make the haughty pontiff feel in a particular manner the effects of his resentment; but he failed in the attempt. Doubly irritated by this disappointment, he vented his fury against images, and their worshippers, in 730, in a much more terrible manner than he had hitherto done; for, in a council assembled at Constantinople, he degraded from his office Germanus, the bishop of that imperial city, who was a patron of images, put Anastasius in his place, ordered all the images to be publicly burned, and inflicted a variety of severe punishments upon such as were attached to that idolatrous worship. These rigorous measures divided the Christian church into two violent factions, whose contests were carried on with an ungoverned rage, and pro-images. But this decision was not sufficient duced nothing but mutual invectives, crimes, to vanquish the blind obstinacy of superstition: and assassinations. Of these factions, one many adhered still to their idolatrous worship; adopted the adoration and worship of images, and none made a more turbulent resistance to and were on that account called Iconoduli or the wise decree of this council than the monks, Iconolatræ; while the other maintained that who still continued to excite commotions in such worship was unlawful, and that nothing the state, and to blow the flames of sedition was more worthy of the zeal of Christians, and rebellion among the people. Their mathan to demolish and destroy the statues and lignity was, however, chastised by Constanpictures that were the occasions and objects of tine, who, filled with a just indignation at this gross idolatry; and hence they were dis- their seditious practices, punished several of tinguished by the titles of Iconomachi and them in an exemplary manner, and by new Iconoclastæ. The furious zeal which Gregory laws set bounds to the violence of monastic II. had shewn in defending the odious super- rage. Leo IV., who, after the death of Constition of image-worship, was not only imita- stantine, was declared emperor, in 775, adoptted, but even surpassed by his successor, who ed the sentiments of his father and grandfawas the third pontiff of that name; and though, ther, and pursued the measures which they at this distance of time, we are not acquainted || had concerted for the extirpation of idolatry with all the criminal circumstances that at-out of the Christian church; for, having pertended the intemperate zeal of these insolent ceived that the worshippers of images could prelates, we know with certainty that it was not be engaged by mild and gentle proceedtheir extravagant attachment to image-wor-ings to abandon this superstitious practice, he ship that chiefly occasioned the separation of had recourse to the coercive influence of penal the Italian provinces from the Grecian empire.* laws. XIII. A cup of poison, administered by the * The Greek writers tell us, that both the Gregories impious counsel of a perfidious wife, deprived carried their insolence so far as to excommunicate Leo Leo IV. of his life, in 780, and rendered the and his son Constantine, to dissolve the obligation of the idolatrous cause of images triumphant. The oath of allegiance, which the people of Italy had taken to these princes, and to prohibit their paying tribute to profligate Irene, after having thus dismissed them, or showing them any marks of submission and obe- her husband from the world, held the reins of dience. These facts are also acknowledged by many of empire during the minority of her son Conthe partisans of the Roman pontiffs, such as Baronius, Sigonius, and their numerous followers. On the other them as having given several marks of their submission hand, some learned writers, particularly among the and obedience to the imperial authority. Such are the French, alleviate considerably the crime of the Gregories, contrary accounts of the Greek and Latin writers; and and positively deny that they either excommunicated the the most prudent use we can make of them is, to suspend emperors above-mentioned, or called off the people from our judgment with respect to a matter, which the obscutheir duty and allegiance. See Launoius, Epist. lib. vii.rity that covers the history of this period renders it im Ep. vii. p. 456. tom. v. op. par. ii.-Nat. Alexander, Se- possible to clear up. All that we can know with certainty lect. Histor. Ecclesiast. Capit. Sæc. viii. dissert. i. p. 456. is, that the zeal of the two pontiffs above-mentioned for De Marca, Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, lib. iii. cap. the worship of images, furnished to the people of Italy xi.-Bossuet, Defens. Declarationis Cleri Gallic. de Po- the occasion of falling from their allegiance to the Gretestate Eccles. par. i. lib. vi. cap. xii. p. 197.-Giannone, cian emperors. Historia di Napoli, vol. i. All these found their opinions, concerning the conduct of the Gregories, chiefly upon the authority of the Latin writers, such as Anastasius, Paul the Deacon, and others, who seem to have known nothing of that audacious insolence, with which these pontiffs are aid to have opposed the emperors, and even represent | * This nick-name was given to Constantine, from his having defiled the sacred font at his baptism. The authority of this council is not acknowledg ed by the Roman catholics, who also disregard the obli gation of the second commandment, which they have pru dently struck out of the decalogue. amine this important question; in which the opinions contained in the four books were solemnly confirmed, and the worship of images unanimously condemned.* Hence we may conclude, that in this century the Latins deem from the opinion of the Roman pontiff, and even to charge that prelate with error. stantine; and, to establish her authority on assembled, at Frankfort on the Maine, a coun more solid foundations, entered into an alli-cil of three hundred bishops, in order to re-ex ance with Adrian, bishop of Rome, in 786, and summoned a council at Nice in Bithynia, which is known by the title of the second Nicene council. In this assembly the imperial laws concerning the new idolatry were abrogated, the decrees of the council of Constanti-ed it neither impious, nor unlawful, to dissent nople reversed, the worship of images and of the cross restored, and severe punishments denounced against such as maintained that God was the only object of religious adoration. It is impossible to imagine any thing more ridiculous and trifling than the arguments upon which the bishops, assembled in this council, founded their decrees.* The Romans, however, held sacred the authority of these decrees; and the Greeks considered in the light of parricides and traitors all such as refused to submit to them. The other enormities of the flagitious Irene, and her deserved fate, cannot, with propriety, be treated of here. XIV. In these violent contests, the greater part of the Latins, such as the Britons, Germans, and Gauls, seemed to steer a middle way between the opposite tenets of the contending parties. They were of opinion that images might be lawfully preserved, and even placed in the churches; but, at the same time, they looked upon all worship of them as highly injurious and offensive to the Supreme Being.† Such, particularly, were the sentiments of Charlemagne, who distinguished himself in this important controversy. By the advice of the French bishops, who were no friends to this second council of Nice, he ordered some learned and judicious divine to compose Four Books concerning Images, which he sent, in 790, to Adrian, the Roman pontiff, with a view of engaging him to withdraw his approbation of the decrees of that council. In this performance the reasons alieged by the Nicene bishops to justify the worship of images, are refuted with great accuracy and spirit. They were not, however, left without defence:Adrian, who was afraid of acknowledging even an emperor for his master, composed an answer to the four books mentioned above; but neither his arguments, nor his authority, were sufficient to support the superstition he endeavoured to maintain; for, in 794, Charlemagne *Mart. Chemnitius, Examen Concilii Tridentini, par. . lib. ii. cap. v. p. 52.-L'Enfant, Preservatif contre la Reunion avec le Siege de Rome, par. iii. lettre xvii. p. 446. The aversion the Britons had to the worship of images, may be seen in Spelman, Concil, Magne Britanniæ, tom. i. p. 73. The books of Charlemagne concerning Images, which deserve an attentive perusal, are yet extant; and, when they were extremely scarce, were republished at Hanover, in 1731, by the celebrated Christopher Aug. Heuman, who enriched this edition with a learned preface. These books are adorned with the venerable name of Charlemagne; but it is easy to perceive that they are the productions of a scholastic divine, and not of an emperor. Several learned men have conjectured, that Charlemagne composed these books with the assistance of his preceptor Alcuin; see Heuman's Pref. p. 51; and Bunau's Historia Imperii German. tom. i. p. 490. This conjecture, though far from being contemptible, cannot be admitted without hesitation, since Alcuin was in England when these books were composed. We learn from the history of his life, that he went into England in 789, and did not thence return before 792. XV. While the controversy concerning images was at its height, a new contest arose among the Latins and Greeks about the source whence the Holy Ghost proceeded. The Latins affirmed, that this divine Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son: the Greeks, on the contrary, asserted, that it proceeded from the Father only. The origin of this controversy is covered with perplexity and doubt. It is, however, certain, that it was agitated in the council of Gentilli, near Paris, in 767, in presence of the emperor's legates;t and from this we may conclude, with a high degree of probability, that it arose in Greece at that time when the contest about images was carried on with the greatest vehemence. In this controversy the Latins alleged, in favour of their opinions, the creed of Constantinople, which the Spaniards and French had successively corrupted (upon what occasion is not well known,) by adding the words filio-que to that part of it which contained the doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost. The Greeks, on the other hand, made loud complaints of this criminal attempt of the Latins to corrupt by a manifest interpolation a creed, which served as a rule of doctrine for the church universal, and declared this attempt impudent and sacrilegious. Thus, the dispute changed at length its object, and was transferred from the matter to the interpolated words above mentioned. In the following century it was carried on with still greater vehemence, and added new fuel to the dissensions which already portended a *This event is treated with a degree of candour, not more laudable than surprising, by Mabillon, in Præf. ad Sæculum iv. Actorum SS. Ord. Benedict. part v. See also Jo. Georg. Dorscheus, Collat. ad Concilium Franco fordiense. p. † See Le Cointe, Annales Eccles. Francorum, tom. v. 698. Learned men generally imagine that this controversy began about the words filio-que, which some of the Latins had added to the creed that had been drawn up by the council of Constantinople, and that from the words the dispute proceeded to the doctrine itself; see Mabillon (Act. Sanctor. Ord. Bened. Sæc. iv. part i. Præf. p. iv.) who is followed by many in this particular. But this opinion is certainly erroneous. The doctrine was the first subject of controversy, which afterwards extended to the words filio-que, considered by the Greeks as a manifest interpolation. Among other proofs of this, the council of Gentilli shows evidently, that the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit had been, for a considerable time, the subject of controversy when the dispute arose about the words now mentioned. Pagi, in his Critica in Baronium, tom. iii. p. 323, is of opinion, that this controversy had both its date and its occasion from the dispute concerning images; for, when the Latins treated the Greeks as heretics, on account of their opposition to image-worship, the Greeks in their turn charged the Latins also with heresy, on account of their maintaining that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son. The learned critic has, however, advanced this opinion without sufficient proof; and we must therefore corder it as no more than a 1robable conjecture. schism between the eastern and churc.ies.* CHAPTER IV. Concerning the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church during this Century. western | in use at Rome, to be observed in all Christian CHAPTER V. Concerning the Divisions and Heresies that troubled the Church during this Century. I. THE religion of this century consisted almost entirely in a motley round of external rites and ceremonies. We are not, therefore, to wonder that more zeal and diligence were employed in multiplying and regulating these outward marks of a superstitious devotion, than in correcting the vices and follies of men, in enlightening their understandings, and forming their hearts. The administration of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, which was deemed the most solemn and important branch of divine worship, was now every where embellished, or rather deformed, with a variety of senseless fopperies, which destroyed the beautiful simplicity of that affecting and salu- I. THE Arians, Manicheans, and Marciontary institution. We also find manifest traces, ites, though often depressed by the force of in this century, of that superstitious custom of penal laws and the power of the secular arm, celebrating what were called solitary masses,† gathered strength in the east, amidst the tuthough it be difficult to decide whether they mults and divisions with which the Grecian were instituted by a public law, or introduced empire was perpetually agitated, and drew by the authority of private persons. Be that great numbers into the profession of their opinas it may, this single custom is sufficient to ions. The Monothelites, to whose cause the give us an idea of the superstition and dark- emperor Philippicus, and many others of the ness that sat brooding over the Christian first rank and dignity, were most zealous wellchurch in this ignorant age, and renders it un-wishers, regained their credit in various counnecessary to enter into a farther detail of the absurd rites with which a designing priesthood continued to disfigure the religion of Jesus. II. Charlemagne seemed disposed to stem this torrent of superstition, which gathered force from day to day; for, not to mention the zeal with which he opposed the worship of images, there are other circumstances that bear testimony to his intentions in this matter, such as his preventing the multiplication of festivals, by reducing them to a fixed and limited number, his prohibiting the ceremony of consecrating the church bells by the rite of holy aspersion, and his enactment of other ecclesiastical laws, which redound to his honour. Several circumstances, however, concurred to render his designs abortive, and to blast the success of his worthy purposes; and none more than his excessive attachment to the Roman pontiffs, who were the patrons and protectors of those who exerted themselves in the cause of ceremonies. This vehement passion for the lordly pontiff was inherited by the great prince of whom we are now speaking, from his father Pepin, who had already commanded the manner of singing, and the kind of church-music * See Pithæi Hist. Controv. de Processione Spiritus S. at the end of his Cod. Canon. Eccles. Roman. p. 355. Le Quien, Oriens Christian. ton. in. p. 354.-Ger. J. Vossius, de Tribus Symbolis, Diss. iii. p. 65; and, above all, Jo. Georg. Walchius, Histor. Controv. de Processione Spiritus S. published at Jena in 1751. Solitary or private masses were such as were celebrated by the priest alone in behalf of souls detained in purgatory, as well as on some other particular occasions. These masses were prohibited by the laws of the church; but they were a rich source of profit to the clergy. They were condemned by the canons of a synod assembled at Mentz under Charlemagne, as criminal innovations, and as the fruits of avarice and sloth. See the Treatise concerning Images, attributed to Charlemagne, p. 245; as also George Calixtus, de Missis Solitari's, sert. 12. | tries. The condition also both of the Nestori ans and Monophysites was easy and agreeable under the dominion of the Arabians; their power and influence were considerable; nor were they destitute of means of weakening the Greeks, their irreconcileable adversaries, of spreading their doctrines, and extensively multiplying the number of their adherents. II. In the church which Boniface had newly erected in Germany, he himself tells us, that there were many perverse and erroneous reprobates, who had no true notion of religion; and his friends and adherents confirm this assertion. But the testimony is undoubtedly partial, and unworthy of credit, since it appears from the most evident proofs, that the persons here accused of errors and heresies were Irish and French divines, who refused that blind submission to the church of Rome, which Boni face was so zealous to propagate every where Adalbert, a Gaul, and Clement, a native of Ireland, were the persons whose opposition gave the most trouble to the ambitious legate. The former procured himself to be consecrated bishop, without the consent of Boniface; excited seditions and tumults among the eastern Franks; and appears, indeed, to have been both flagitious in his conduct, and erroneous in his opinions. Among other irregularities, he was the forgert of a letter to the human race, which was said to have been written by Jesus Christ, and to have been brought from heaven by the arch-angel Michael.§ As to Clement, * See the Treatise concerning Images, p. 52; and Eginhard, de Vita Caroli Magni, cap. 26. In Europe also Arianism prevailed greatly among the barbarous nations that embraced the Christian faith. 82. See the Histoire Literaire de la France, tom. iv. p. There is an edition of this letter published by the learned Baluze in the Capitularia Regum Francorum tom. ii. p. 1396. |