tant.

X. The teachers of theology were still more contemptible than the commentators; and the Greeks, as well as the Latins, were extremely negligent both in unfolding the nature, and proving the truth of the doctrines of Christianwas dry and unsatisfactory, and more adapted to fill the memory with sentences, than to en lighten the understanding, or to improve the judgment. The Greeks, for the most part, fol lowed implicitly Damascenus, while the Latins submitted their hoodwinked intellects to the au thority of Augustine. Authority became the test of truth, and supplied in arrogance what it wanted in argument. That magisterial decisions were employed in the place of reason, appears manifestly from the Collectaneum de tribus Quæstionibus of Servatus Lupus; and also from a treatise of Remigius, concerning the necessity of holding fast the truths of the Gospel, and of maintaining inviolable the sacred authority of the holy and orthodox fathers.— If any deigned to appeal to the authority of the Scriptures in defence of their systems, they either explained them in an allegorical manner, or understood them in the sense that had been given to them by the decrees of councils, or in the writings of the fathers; from which senses they thought it both unlawful and impious to depart. The Irish doctors alone, and particularly Johannes Scotus, had the courage to spurn the ignominious fetters of authority, and to explain the sublime doctrines of Christianity in a manner conformable to the dictates of reason, and the principles of true philosophy. But this noble attempt drew upon them the malignant fury of a superstitious age, and exposed them to the hatred of the Latin theologians, who would not permit either reason or philosophy to interfere in religious matters.

n consequence of the zeal and munificence of Charlemagne, who, both by his liberality and by his example, had excited and encouraged the doctors of the preceding age to the study of the Scriptures. Of these expositors there are two, at least, who are worthy of esteem,ity. Their method of inculcating divine truth Christian Druthmar, whose Commentary on St. Matthew has reached our times;* and the abbot Bertharius, whose Two Books concerning Fundamentals are also said to be yet exThe rest seem to have been unequal to the important office of sacred critics, and may be divided into two classes, which we have already had occasion to mention in the course of this history; the class of those who merely collected and reduced into a mass the opinions and explications of the ancients, and that of a fantastic set of expositors, who were always hunting after mysteries in the plainest expressions, and labouring to deduce a variety of abstruse and hidden significations from every passage of Scripture, all which they did, for the most part, in a very clumsy and uncouth manAt the head of the first class was Rabanus Maurus, who acknowledges that he borrowed from the ancient doctors the materials | of which he made use in illustrating the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistles of St. Paul. To this class also belonged Walafrid || Strabo, who borrowed his explications chiefly from Rabanus; Claudius of Turin, who trod in the footsteps of Augustin and Origen; Hincmar, whose Exposition of the four Books of Kings, compiled from the fathers, we still possess; Remigius of Auxerre, who derived from the same source his illustrations of the Psalms and other books of sacred writ; Sedulius, who explained in the same manner the Epistles of St. Paul; Florus, Haymo bishop of Halberstadt, and others, whom for the sake of brevity, we pass in silence.

ner.

IX. Rabanus Maurus, whom we introduced above at the head of the compilers from the fathers, deserves also an eminent place among the allegorical commentators, on account of his diffuse and tedious work, entitled Scripture Allegories. To this class also belong Smaragdus, Haymo, Scotus, Paschasius Radbert, and many others, whom it is not necessary to particularize. The fundamental and general principle, in which all the writers of this class agree, is, that, beside the literal signification of each passage in Scripture, there are hidden and deep senses which escape the vulgar eye; out they are not agreed about the number of these mysterious significations. Some attribute to every phrase three senses, others four, and some five; and the number is carried to seven by Angelome, a monk of Lisieux, an acute, though fantastic writer, who is far from deserving the meanest rank among the expositors of this century.f

* See R. Simon, Histoire critique des principaux Commentateurs du Nouv. Testament. chap. xxv. p. 348; as also his Critique de la Bibliotheque Ecclesiastique de M. Du-Pin, tom. i. p. 293.

See the preface to his Commentary on the Book of Kings, in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima, tom. xv. p. 308. The commentary of Angelome upon the book of Genesis was published by Bernard Pezius, in his Thesaurus Anecdotorum, tom. i. part i.; but, indeed, the loss would not have been great, if it had never seen the light.

XI. The important science of morals suffered, like all others, in the hands of ignorant and unskilful writers. The labours of some were wholly employed in collecting from the fathers an indigested heap of maxims and sentences concerning religious and moral duties; and such, among others, was the work of Alvarus, intitled Scintilla Patrum. Others wrote of virtue and vice, in a more systematic manner; such as Halitgarius, Rabanus Maurus, and Jonas, bishop of Orleans; but the representations they gave of one and the other were very different from those which we find in the Gospel. Some deviated into that most absurd and delusive method of instructing the ignorant in the will of God by a fantastic combination of figures and allegories; and several of the Greeks began to turn their studies towards the solution of cases of conscience,† in order to remove the difficulties that arose in scrupulous and timorous minds. We pass in silence the writers of homilies and books of penance, of which a considerable number appeared in this century.

XII. The doctrine of the mystics, whose origin is falsely attributed to Dionysius the Are

opagagite, and whose precepts were designed to elevate the soul above all sensible and terrestrial objects, and to unite it to the Deity in an ineffable manner, had been now for a long time in vogue among the Greeks, and more especially among the monastic orders; and to augment the credit of this fanatical sect, and multiply its followers, Michael Syncellus and Methodius composed the most pompous and eloquent panegyrics upon the memory of Dionysius, in which his virtues were celebrated with the utmost exaggeration. The Latins were not yet bewitched with the specious appearance, and the illusory charms of the mystic devotion, which was equally adapted to affect persons of a lively fancy and those of a more gloomy turn of mind. They lived in a happy ignorance of this contagious doctrine, when the Grecian emperor Michael Balbus sent to Louis the Debonnaire, in 824, a copy of the pretended works* of Dionysius the Areopagite, which fatal present immediately kindled the holy flame of mysticism in the western provinces, and filled the Latins with the most enthusiastic admiration of this new religion. The translation of these spurious works into Latin by the express order of the emperor,† who could not be easy while his subjects were deprived of such a valuable treasure, contributed much to the progress of mysticism. By the order of the same emperor, Hilduin, abbot of St. Denys, composed an account of the life, actions, and writings of Dionysius, under the title of Aereopagitica, in which work, among other impudent fictions, usual in those times of superstition and imposture, he maintained, In order to exalt the honour of his nation, that Dionysius the Areopagite, and Dionysius the bishop of Paris, were one and the same person. This fable, which was invented with unparalleled assurance, was received with the most perfect and unthinking credulity, and

made such a deep and permanent impression upon the minds of the French, that the repeated demonstrations of its falsehood have not yet been sufficient entirely to ruin its credit. As the first translation of the works of Dionysius that had been executed by order of Louis, was probably in a barbarous and obscure style. a new and more elegant one was given by the famous Johannes Scotus Erigena, at the request of Charles the Bald, the publication of which increased considerably the partisans of the mystic theology among the French, Italians, and Germans. Scotus himself was so enchanted with this new doctrine, that he incorporated it into his philosophical system, and upon all occasions either accommodated his philosophy to it, or explained it according to the principles of his philosophy.

XIII. The defence of Christianity, against the Jews and Pagans, was greatly neglected in this century, in which the intestine disputes and dissensions that divided the church, gave sufficient employment to such as had an inclination to controversy, or a talent of managing it with dexterity and knowledge. Agobard, however, as also Amulo and Rabanus Maurus chastised the insolence and malignity of the Jews, and exposed their various absurdities and errors, while the emperor Leo, Theodorus Abucara, and other writers, whose performances are lost, employed their polemic labors against the progress of the Saracens, and refuted their impious and extravagant system. But it may be observed in general of those who wrote against the Saracens, that they reported many things, both concerning Mohammed and his religion, which were far from being true; and if, as there is too much reason to imagine, they did this designedly, knowing the falsehood, or at least the uncertainty of their allegations against these infidels, we must look upon their writings rather as intended to deter the Christians from apostasy, than to give a rational re* Usserii Sylloge Ep. Hibernicar. p. 54, 55. The futation of the Saracen doctrine. spuriousness of these works is now admitted by the XIV. The contests of the Christians among most learned and impartial of the Roman Catholic writers, as they contain accounts of many events themselves were carried on with greater eager that happened several ages after the time of Diony-ness and animosity than the disputes in which sius, and were not at all mentioned until after the fifth century. See Fleury, Hist. Eccles. liv. 54. tom. xi. p. 528. edit. Bruxelles.

That these books were translated by the order of Louis, appears manifestly from the Epistle to that emperor, which Hilduin prefixed to his Areopagitica, and in which we find the following passage: "de notitia librorum, quos (Dionysius) patrio sermone conscripsit, et puibus petentibus illos composuit, lectio nobis per Dei gratiam et Vestram ordinationem, cujus dispensatione interpretatos, scrinia nostra eos petentibus reserat, satisfacit." From this passage, it is evident that they are in an error, who affirm that the Latin translation of the works of Dionysius was not executed before the time of Charles the Bald. And they err also, who, with Mabillon, (Annal. Benedict. tom. ii. lib. xxix. sect. 59. p. 488,) and the authors of the Hist. Lit. de la France (tom. v. p.

425.) inform us, that Michael Balbus sent these works already translated into Latin to the emperor Louis. It is amazing how men of learning could fall into the latter error, after reading the following passage in th. Epistle above quoted: "Authenticos namque eosdem (Dionysii) libros Græca lingua conscriptos, cum œconomus ecclesia Constantinopoli tanæ et ceteri missi Michaelis legatione-functi "sunt-pro munere magno suscepimus."

Launoy, Diss. de Discrimine Dionysii Areopag et Parisiensis, cap. iv. p. 38. tom. ii. p. i. op.; as also the writings of this great an concerning both those Jivines.

they were engaged with the common enemies of their faith; and these contests were daily productive of new calamities and disorders, which dishonoured their profession, and threw. a heavy, though undeserved reproach upon the cause of true religion. After the banishment of Irene, the controversy, concerning Images broke out anew among the Greeks, and was carried on by the contending parties, during the half of this century, with various and uncertain success. The emperor Nicephorus, though he did not abrogate the decrees of the council of Nice, or order the images to be taken out of the churches, deprived the patrons of image-worship of all power to molest or injure their adversaries, and seems upon the whole to have been an enemy to that idolatrous service. But his successor Michael Curopalates, surnamed Rhangebe, acted in a very different manner. Feeble and timorous, and dreading the rage of the priests and monks who maintained the cause of images, he favoured that cause during his short reign, and persecuted its adversaries with the greatest bit.

of, an anniversary festival, which was called the Feast of Orthodoxy.*

terness and cruelty. The scene changed again, upon the accession of Leo the Armenian to 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. Miatry, was still more vehement; for he opposed chael Balbus, when he sent, in 824, a solemn he 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 friend obstinate 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 rity. This superstitious princess, fatigued with the importunate solicitations of the monks, deluded by their forged miracles, and not a little influenced also by their insolent threats, assembled, in the year above-mentioned, a council at Constantinople, in which the decrees of the second Nicene council were reinstated in their lost authority, and the Greeks were indulged in their corrupt propensity to image-worship by a law which encouraged that wretched idolatry; so that, after a controversy, which had been carried on during the space of a hundred and ten years, the cause of idolatry triumphed over the dictates of reason and Christianity; the whole east, the Armenians excepted, bowed down before the victorious images; nor did any of the succeeding 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 most signal blessing derived to them from the immediate 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. viv. p. 147; lett. xviii. xix. p. 509.

bring over the king of the Franks to the party of the Iconoclasts, that they might gradually suppress, by their united influence, the worship of images, and thus restore concord and tranquillity to the church. Louis, on this occasion, assembled a council at Paris, in 824,1 in order to examine the proposal of the Grecian emperor; in which it was resolved to adhere to the decrees of the council of Frankfort, which allowed the use of images in the churches, but severely prohibited the treating of them with the smallest marks of religious worship. But in process of time the European Christians departed gradually from the observance of this injunction, and fell imperceptibly into a blind submission to the decisions of the pope, whose influence and authority daily became more formidable; so that, toward the conclusion of

*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 emperor, to which, however, he had an undoubted right in consequence of the treaties which tney now desired to renew.

So Michael and his son Theophilus style Louis

Fleury, Le Sueur, and other historians, una

pontiff were by no means looked upon at this time either as obligatory or infallible; for, when the letter of pope Adrian, in favour of images, was read 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 com munion of the apostolic see. See Fleury, liv. xlvii

they stop here, but despatched to Charlemagne, in 809, a certain ecclesiastic of their order, whose name was John, to obtain satisfaction in this matter.* The affair was debated in due form, in a council assembled in that year at Aix-la-Chapelle, and also at Rome, in the presence of pope Leo III., to whom the emperor had sent ambassadors for that purpose. Leo adopted the doctrine which represented the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the Son, but he condemned the addition that had been made to the symbol,† and declared it as his opinion, that filio-que, being evidently an interpolation, ought to be omitted in reading the symbol, and at length stricken out of it entirely, not every where at once, but in such a prudent manner as to prevent disturbance. His successors were of the same opinion; the word, however, being once admitted, not only kept its place in opposition to the Roman pontiffs, but was by degrees added to the symbol in all the Latin churches.

this century, the Gallican clergy began to pay || son, in the above mentioned symbol; nor did a certain kind of religious homage to the saintly images, in which their example was followed by the Germans and other nations.* XVII. Notwithstanding this apostasy, the Iconoclasts were not destitute of adherents | among the Latins. Of these, the most eminent was Claudius, bishop of Turin, by birth a Spaniard, and also a disciple of Felix, bishop of Urgel. This zealous prelate, as soon as he had obtained the episcopal dignity through the favour of Louis the Debonnaire, began to exercise the duties of his function in 823, by ordering all images, and even the cross, to be cast out of the churches, and committed to the flames. The year following he composed a treatise, in which he not only defended these vehement proceedings, and declared against the use, as well as the worship, of images, but also broached several other opinions, that were quite contrary to the notions of the multitude, and to the prejudices of the times. He denied, among other things, in opposition to the Greeks, that the cross was to be honoured with 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, .om. 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.

I 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. Col. lect. 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 S Antwerp. ad d. xxv.. Aprilis.

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 Lati church any fixed or universally received cpinion concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the eucha rist.

amounted, in general, to the two following || the signs and symbols of the absent body and propositions: first, that, after the consecration blood of Christ. All the other theologians of 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, seems 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.

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 trium phant progress of the doctrine of transubstan tiation 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

* For an account of the Stercoranists, see Mabillon, Præf. ad Sæc. iv. Benedict. part ii. p. 21.-J. Basnage, Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. i. p. 926, and a Treatise of the learned Dr. Pfaff, published at Tubingen

in 1750.